IRMI Expert Commentary: NY Highest Court Confronts Downstream Risk Transfer for Subcontractor Bodily Injury Claims
March 17, 2026 —
Gregory D. Podolak & Alexander G. Hopkins - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Originally published on IRMI.com, copyright 2026 International Risk Management Institute, Inc.
Subcontractor employee bodily injury claims (so-called action over claims) are a staple of construction risk management in the Empire State—so much so that the phrase “labor law” instinctively invites a shudder among the most experienced general contractors. The savvy among them intensely monitor case law developments and the evolution of the insurance market to ensure a cutting-edge, meticulously developed downstream risk transfer plan. And when guidance arrives from an appellate-level court, it’s a moment to take note.
This is one of those moments.
In late 2025, New York’s highest court—the NY Court of Appeals—had the rare opportunity to examine an all-too-routine bodily injury fact pattern and took the opportunity to closely examine the scope of contractual indemnity and its interplay with additional insured coverage in Dibrino v. Rockefeller Center N., Inc., 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 07077, 2025 WL 3670593 (Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2025).
Reprinted courtesy of
Gregory D. Podolak, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Alexander G. Hopkins, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Podolak may be contacted at GPodolak@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Hopkins may be contacted at AHopkins@sdvlaw.com
Read the full story...
AIA Waivers Under Fire: Why Post-Completion Losses May Still Be Actionable
January 26, 2026 —
Lian Skaf - The Subrogation StrategistOn its face, the power of a waiver of subrogation clause in a construction contract is profound. It bars otherwise actionable – and sometimes egregious – losses resulting from contractor carelessness before they can ever get started. One question courts have long battled with is the limits to the lasting effects of such a waiver. Whether the waiver power can be transferred amongst parties, applied to third parties or used with policies taken out after construction completion are among the few grey areas that have kept subrogation practitioners and the courts busy. Recently, a federal court in Idaho clarified its position on the power to waive subrogation.
In Seneca Ins. Co. v. McAlvain Constr., Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00340-BLW, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 251777 (D. Idaho), the United States District Court for the District of Idaho (District Court) addressed whether a subrogation waiver in an AIA construction contract, signed between an owner and the general contractor, applied to the subsequent owner of a building. In doing so, the court looked at the limiting language of the waiver as well as the contractual posture of the subsequent owner. Ultimately, the court found the waiver inapplicable, denying the motion for summary judgment of Defendant, Cross-Plaintiff McAlvain Construction, Inc. (McAlvain).
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lian Skaf, White and WilliamsMr. Skaf may be contacted at
skafl@whiteandwilliams.com
Exclusion Bars Coverage For Cosmetic Hail Damage to Roof
January 13, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment, finding there was no coverage for hail damage due to an exclusion for cosmetic hail damage. Cannon Falls Area Schools v Hanover Am. Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206792 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2025).
On April 22, 2022, a hailstorm and high winds damaged the insured School’s buildings. The School’s buildings had metal roofs. The parties agreed that the hailstorm caused indentations to the roofs, but did not puncture the metal on the roofs. Since the storm, the roofs had not leaked.
The School submitted a claim for property damage to its insurer, Hanover. A portion of the claim for damage to the HVAC equipment was paid. The remainder of the claim was denied based on the policy’s Cosmetic Damage Exclusion which excluded coverage for cosmetic damage to roof surfacing caused by wind or hail.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Ninth Circuit Holds That Policies Covering Environmental Claims Do Not Have Aggregate Limits
May 12, 2026 —
Lorelie S. Masters & Joseph T. Niczky - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogIn the case of
County of San Bernardino v. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, the Ninth Circuit recently addressed the issue of whether general liability policies issued in the 1960s and 1970s included aggregate limits for claims arising under the premises-operations coverage in CGL policies. The difference between the policyholder’s interpretation of the policies’ limits clauses and the insurer’s interpretation was worth hundreds of millions of dollars in exposure for the insurer. The Court closely examined the policy language and extrinsic evidence from both the insurance industry’s drafting history and the parties before concluding that the policies were ambiguous. The Court construed that ambiguity in favor of the policyholder and ruled that aggregate limits did not apply to the claims at issue. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of carefully examining a policy’s limits, especially for older policies written before 1986 when the insurance industry revised the standard-form CGL policy to state the aggregate limits apply not only to products liability claims but to premises-operations claims as well. Decades of insurance industry drafting history confirms, as the policyholder’s submissions in this case indicate, that the industry well understood that operations claims like the environmental waste-disposal claims at issue here typically were not subject to aggregate limits.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and
Joseph T. Niczky, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@hunton.com
Mr. Niczky may be contacted at jniczky@hunton.com
Read the full story...
Massachusetts Nuclear Verdict Leads To $90M Bad Faith Award
February 10, 2026 —
Eric B. Hermanson & Timothy J. Langan - White and WilliamsInsurers in Massachusetts have long struggled with the demands of MGL ch. G.L.c 176D, § 3(9)(f), which requires “prompt, fair and equitable settlements of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear.” Last month a Superior Court ruling illustrated the potentially draconian consequences of a violation: finding an insurer liable for more than $90 million in bad faith damages, in a case that might have settled under $3 million with proper handling.
The claimant, John Rooney, was a mason who fell off a scaffold at a construction site. He sued the general contractor. The general contractor, in turn, sought coverage as an additional insured under a series of Liberty Mutual policies issued to Rooney’s employer – the masonry company – with combined aggregate limits of $19.5 million.
Reprinted courtesy of
Eric B. Hermanson, White and Williams and
Timothy J. Langan, White and Williams
Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Langan may be contacted at langant@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the full story...
HHMR: A Retrospective — Chapter One (2001–2025)
January 26, 2026 —
David McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation BlogThere comes a point in every career when you stop long enough to look back, not out of nostalgia, but out of clarity. You begin to see the arc, the accidents, the grace, and the moments when others carried more of the burden than you realized at the time. For me, that moment came recently, somewhere between the twenty-fifth year of practicing construction litigation and the rewriting of our firm’s operating agreement. I found myself asking a question I should have asked long ago: What are we building, and will it last?
The truth is that we at HHMR do not build anything. Our clients do. They are the ones building Colorado, from single-family homes and multifamily developments to commercial, industrial, and infrastructure projects, navigating every constraint, hurdle, and barrier this state presents to them. They are the men and women in the arena, in Theodore Roosevelt’s sense. They pour foundations, frame walls, manage subs, balance supply chains, and take the risks inherent in the act of building anything of value. And for that work, they get sued. My job, and the job of this firm, is to defend them. We are their champions.
Understanding this truth is the starting point of HHMR 2.0. But to appreciate where we are going, you must first understand from where we came.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
How to Properly Fill Out and Use the Unconditional Waiver and Release on Progress Payment Form Used in California Construction
December 22, 2025 —
William L. Porter - Porter Law GroupThis is the Second article in a series of four articles discussing how to properly fill out the four California construction releases described in California Civil Code 8132 – 8138.
Let me start by noting that in addition to practicing construction law for more than 35 years, I chaired the committee of California construction attorneys who revised those sections of the California Civil Code dealing with this release form and many other construction forms as part of Senate Bill 189 in 2010. I also wrote the first version of this release form and made it free to the public well before the new law took effect in 2012. With this background, let me note a few things about the Unconditional Waiver and Release on Progress Payment form to help you avoid mistakes that might prevent you from achieving the intended effect of the form or releasing claim rights to a greater extent than you intend.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Porter, Porter Law GroupMr. Porter may be contacted at
bporter@porterlaw.com
Turnover Traps for Community Associations: Investigate First, Release Claims Later
April 14, 2026 —
Nicholas B. Vargo - Ball Janik LLPTurnover of a community association from developer control to owner control is a uniquely vulnerable moment. Developers are increasingly presenting Florida condominium and homeowners’ associations with “standard” settlement or release agreements at turnover, often being framed as routine steps to finalize the transition of control. In reality, these agreements can have sweeping consequences, including the release of construction-defect claims before the association has conducted any meaningful independent evaluation.
The developer has years of project knowledge and access to plans, subcontractors, and internal records. The newly elected board is just beginning to organize, obtain documents, and understand the property’s condition. Many defects, especially those involving roofing, waterproofing, windows, or structural components, are latent and not yet visible. Signing a release at this stage means the association is making a binding decision under conditions of uncertainty, without full information, to release all future potential claims.
Over the last few years, there has been a rise in reports of developers offering a packaged deal: they agree to complete certain repairs, often minor punch-list or cosmetic items, and to “forgive” an alleged financial deficit (often around $50,000) supposedly owed by the association from the developer-control period. In exchange, the association is asked to sign a broad release covering all claims, including known and unknown construction defects. To a new HOA board that received their community with limited operating and reserve funds, they are left with a difficult decision to either accept the developer’s offer or assess their owners to pay this alleged debt.
These agreements are occasionally presented through community management companies, which may describe them as “standard” or "routine.” Whether due to misunderstanding or influence from the developer, management companies can unintentionally reinforce the idea that signing is expected. Any recommendation provided to HOAs about whether to sign these releases could open community management to liability down the road. The best practice for both associations and community managers is to refer any agreements to be reviewed by general counsel for the association.
The following two case studies illustrate the real-world consequences:
Case Study One: A newly transitioned board relies on its management company to negotiate with the developer-builder to resolve irrigation issues, pond concerns, and signage deficiencies, along with forgiving an asserted financial shortfall. In exchange, the board signs a broad release covering all claims, including latent defects.
Within a year, several punch-list items remain incomplete, and more serious issues arise. When the association demands completion, the developer delays, prompting the association to seek advice on how to enforce the settlement agreement. The association hires counsel to hold the developer responsible for both the previously agreed-upon items and newly identified construction defects. However, when the association brings claims against the developer, the developer points to the release of all potential construction defects in the community. Thus, the only remaining remedy is limited to enforcement of the specific punch-list terms. The community, still relatively new, has no viable claims against the developer-builder for the construction defects. With warranties expired and the release, the association must fund repairs through special assessments, despite defects that would otherwise have been actionable.
Case Study Two: A community is presented with a similar agreement as above. The management company encourages execution, suggesting it is standard and even telling the board to “name your price.” The developer also pressures the newly elected board to sign.
Instead of signing, the board consults with their attorney. Counsel advises the board not to sign the release and recommends further investigation. Engineers are retained and identify early indicators of broader issues, including stucco cracking, water intrusion, and irrigation deficiencies. Based on this information, the association declines to sign the release. Subsequent evaluation reveals potentially significant construction-defect claims, allowing the community to pursue recovery that would have been lost under the proposed agreement.
These scenarios underscore a fundamental point: signing a release at turnover is not an administrative formality—it is a major legal decision. Board members act in a fiduciary capacity on behalf of their community, and their decisions can bind all current and future owners. At turnover, an association’s right is to investigate and pursue claims. Preserving that right until a full and independent evaluation is completed is not adversarial—it is responsible governance.
Accordingly, associations should retain independent evaluations of the property and consult qualified legal counsel before signing any “standard” agreements, especially ones involving a release of future claims.
Nicholas B. Vargo is a partner in Ball Janik LLP’s Construction Practice Group. He may be reached at nvargo@balljanik.com.
