How to Fireproof a Neighborhood
March 17, 2026 —
Linda Poon - BloombergAs builders in fire-prone areas like California race to
reimagine homes for a more fiery future, one developer is zooming out to build entire fire-resilient neighborhoods.
KB Home’s developments tackle an issue that’s
hard for any individual homeowner to overcome: “You can do your home perfectly, but if your neighbor didn’t, you still have a fire risk,” said Roy Wright, chief executive officer of the research nonprofit Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety. In other words, to slow the spread of urban fires
it takes a village.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Linda Poon, Bloomberg
Arizona Court Enters $323 Million Judgment Against ZOM Living Following Unanimous Jury Verdict
May 26, 2026 —
Gray Development GroupPHOENIX, May 19, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- A Maricopa County court has entered a $323 million compensatory damages judgment in favor of Gray Development Group against ZOM Holding Inc., doing business as ZOM Living, following a 12-day trial, a unanimous jury verdict and post-trial proceedings related to a proposed business transaction.
The jury found ZOM liable on claims of breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing stemming from a proposed joint venture tied to a planned pipeline of luxury multifamily and commercial projects in Phoenix and Scottsdale.
The lawsuit centered on a 13-project, $1.4 billion development pipeline originated and planned by Gray Development Group over more than a decade. In 2019, Gray invited Florida-based ZOM to participate in a joint venture involving the completion of five projects, which would have marked ZOM's entry into the Arizona market.
According to court findings presented at trial, the companies entered into a mutual confidentiality and non-circumvention agreement before Gray shared extensive sensitive and proprietary information related to the projects, including planning, market analysis, costs, financial data, local business relationships and operational strategies developed by Gray over decades in Arizona.
Evidence presented during trial showed that over a 10-month period while under contract, ZOM made hundreds of requests for confidential project and market information before circumventing Gray and pursuing the projects independently, ultimately displacing Gray from projects it spent years planning and developing.
ZOM Living, headquartered in Orlando, develops multifamily and senior housing communities across the United States and operates regional offices in Boston, Dallas, Fort Lauderdale, Nashville, Phoenix, and Raleigh. ZOM is owned by Timeless Investments, the Amsterdam-based family office of Dutch businessman Hans van Veggel, which acquired the company in 1997.
About Gray Development Group
Gray Development Group was founded by architect Bruce Gray in 1991. The Phoenix-based company was the top-ranked multifamily developer in Arizona for more than a decade. The company designed and developed more than 15,000 apartment and condominium units throughout metropolitan Phoenix. Two Gray-designed developments — a Tempe midrise and a San Diego high-rise — received National Apartment Community of the Year awards.
Why Travelers Fought a Fire Claim for Invisible Smoke Damage
February 23, 2026 —
Elaine Silver - Engineering News-RecordJust 40 minutes after midnight on Sept. 27, 2018, the sky lit up over Birmingham, Ala. A fire engulfed an apartment building under construction—the last-to-be completed section of a wood-framed complex called the Metropolitan. It fueled one of the largest recorded blazes in the city’s history.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Elaine Silver, Engineering News-RecordENR may be contacted at
enr@enr.com
Meet BWB&O’s Super Lawyers Rising Stars in Colorado!
April 08, 2026 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLPBremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is thrilled to share that Partner
Devin Brunson and Associate
Melissa Youngpeter have been named to the Super Lawyers 2026 Colorado Rising Stars list. This recognition reflects their exceptional work in Personal Injury and Civil Litigation.
SUPER LAWYERS RISING STARS
Devin Brunson: 2024-2026
Melissa Youngpeter: 2026
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP
Seventh Circuit, With an Assist From the Illinois Supreme Court, Finds That “Pollution Exclusion” Bars Coverage For Emissions Allowed Under Regulatory Permit
April 20, 2026 —
Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogIn Griffith Foods Int’l Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 24-1217 & 24-1223 (7th Cir. Mar. 13, 2026), the Seventh Circuit addressed the meaning and scope of a pollution exclusion in a standard-form commercial general liability insurance policy for underlying injuries caused by ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions. The insurance dispute arose out of underlying tort litigation involving bodily injury claims, including cancer, allegedly caused by emissions of ethylene oxide over a 35-year period from 1984 through 2019 by Griffith Foods International and later Sterigenics U.S. The pollution exclusion at issue generally barred coverage for “bodily injury” arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants.
Interpreting similar exclusions, the Illinois Supreme Court has previously held that the standard CGL pollution exclusion bars coverage for bodily injuries caused by traditional environmental pollution (essentially industrial emissions of pollutants), but not by more commonplace emissions (such as carbon monoxide from a residential furnace or excess chlorine in a backyard swimming pool). See American States Insurance Co. v. Koloms, 177 Ill. 2d 473 (Ill. 1997). In Griffith Foods, the District Court initially concluded that the pollution exclusion did not apply because the companies emitted EtO pursuant to a permit issued by the IEPA. The District Court reached this latter conclusion by applying Erie Insurance Exchange v. Imperial Marble Corp., 957 N.E.2d 1214 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011), an Illinois intermediate appellate court decision finding it ambiguous whether a CGL policy’s pollution exclusion barred coverage for emissions authorized by regulatory permit.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Taylor, Traub LiebermanMr. Taylor may be contacted at
jtaylor@tlsslaw.com
That’s a Wrap! Pennsylvania Court Holds Arbitration Clause in Online Agreement Unenforceable
May 14, 2026 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Duffy v. Tatum, 2026 Pa. Super. LEXIS 112, 2026 PA Super 41, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Superior Court) considered whether an arbitration provision contained in the online Terms of Service on the defendant’s website were enforceable. The plaintiff, Daniel Duffy (Duffy), visited the website of defendant, Dolly, Inc. (Dolly), to purchase moving services. Duffy selected the number of movers, items to be moved and the type of vehicle needed. To complete the booking, the website required Duffy to checkmark a box labeled “By checking this box I accept the Dolly Terms of Service.” Duffy did not have to open the link or scroll to the bottom of the agreement before being able to click on the checkmark box. The Terms of Service included an arbitration provision requiring that any dispute related to the moving services to be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the American Arbitration Association. The Terms of Service did not include any statement that the user was waiving the right to a jury trial. The Superior Court found the internet Terms of Service unenforceable.
During the moving process, an accident occurred and injured Duffy. In May 2024, Duffy and his wife sued Dolly and other related entities alleging negligence and loss of consortium. Dolly filed preliminary objections alleging that the parties agreed to alternative dispute resolution. The lower court overruled the preliminary objections, finding that Dolly’s website did not provide reasonably obvious notice of its Terms of Service to Duffy and, as such, Duffy never agreed to waive his constructional right to a jury trial. Dolly filed an appeal to the Superior Court.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and Williams LLPMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
A Couple of Mechanic’s Lien Bills in VA [UPDATED]
February 23, 2026 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsWell, its that time of year again, the Virginia General Assembly is in session and looking to make changes to all kinds of things here in the Commonwealth. While most of those changes are well outside of the subject of Construction Law Musings, changes to the
mechanic’s lien statutes certainly are not. This year, the Virginia General Assembly is poised to make some big changes if certain legislation gets out of committee and passes the legislature, a description and some comments on these follow:
HB752 – Mechanics’ liens; liens attaching to property; memorandum of lien. [Original Description] Removes the exclusion of the attachment of a mechanic’s lien to property improved or repaired when the lien is based on a claim for repairs or existing structures. The bill further removes (i) the ability of a lien claimant to file any number of memoranda of lien including the details relating to the lien and (ii) the provisions of the Code specifying that no memorandum filed shall include sums due for (a) labor or materials furnished more than 150 days prior to the last day labor was performed or (b) material furnished to the job preceding the filing of such memorandum.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
David Samani Joins BHBA Podcast on Mediation Best Practices
May 05, 2026 —
Lewis BrisboisLos Angeles Partner David Samani recently joined a Beverly Hills Bar Association (BHBA) podcast titled, “Mediation 360: Preparation from the Defense, Plaintiff, and Mediator Perspectives,” during which he shared his insights on various aspects of the mediation process. Mr. Samani, along with a plaintiff’s attorney and a mediator, presented their thoughts on topics including how to determine whether a case is appropriate for mediation, preparing to mediate a case, communicating with clients, and handling the mediation itself.
Mr. Samani explained that early communication with clients is critical so that attorneys may learn what a client’s objectives are and develop an assessment of the case. He described that “from an early stage,” attorneys should determine the cost of litigation and ensure that the client understands “what an aggressive defense might entail.” As the matter progresses, attorneys and clients should “continue the dialogue” regarding costs as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the case, “making sure the client is apprised of the various alternatives that exist.” In addition, Mr. Samani discussed factors to consider when choosing a mediator, noting, “All mediators have their own styles and backgrounds.” He explained that some cases may call for a mediator with specialized knowledge in a particular area such as bankruptcy or securities, while other mediations may benefit from a mediator who understands the realities of private practice.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
