D.C. Circuit Upholds EPA’s CERCLA Hazardous-Substance Designations for PFAS as State-Law Settlements Highlight Expanding Liability Landscape
September 15, 2026 —
Ashleigh K. Myers, Amanda G. Halter, Jillian Marullo & Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogOn August 18, 2026, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the 2024 designation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund). (See Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. v. EPA, No. 24-1193 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 18, 2026).)
The decision leaves EPA’s PFOA and PFOS hazardous substance designations in place and provides guidance on the scope of EPA’s authority to make future hazardous substances designations under CERCLA Section 102(a). The decision also likely resolves a challenge to the rule that has spanned two presidential administrations. After taking office, the Trump administration had obtained an abeyance of the litigation challenging the Biden-era rule while EPA reconsidered its position. In September 2025, EPA informed the court that it had decided to retain the designations, while signaling that it would work with Congress and industry to address CERCLA liability concerns for “passive receivers.” The litigation then resumed, with the current Administration defending the rule.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ashleigh K. Myers, Pillsbury,
Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury,
Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury and
Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Read the full story...
Tampa Team Obtains Highly Favorable Verdict for Property Owner Client in Lawsuit over Traffic Accident
March 24, 2026 —
Lewis Brisbois NewsroomTampa Managing Partner John Rine and Partner Nick Dareneau obtained a very favorable verdict for their property owner client in a Sarasota County trial in a lawsuit arising from a traffic accident. At the end of closing arguments, plaintiff’s counsel requested appropriately $18 million from the jury. The jury returned a net verdict of just over a thousand dollars.
The plaintiff was on a scooter and was involved in an accident with an SUV in a parking lot intersection. Our firm represented the property owner. The plaintiffs argued that the landscape vegetation was too tall and violated the sight lines of the two drivers, and that the height of the shrubbery violated the owner’s landscaping contract and a local sight line ordinance. They also argued that the intersection lacked a stop sign in contrast to the other six parking lot entrances, which had stop signs.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
The Grenfell & Champlain Towers: Risk Management Considerations in the Wake of Catastrophic Loss — A UK/US Comparison
June 02, 2026 —
Eric M. Clarkson - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.1. Introduction
As part of the multinational collaborative relationship between Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Fenchurch Law, we continually find ourselves in conversations about the sometimes subtle but sometimes drastic differences between risk management and coverage considerations from one country to the next. These differences are often highlighted by the fallout from large catastrophic losses that are widely publicized and illuminate sometimes widespread risks and perils that many others may be facing in the coming years.
The response of governments and their subdivisions to the needs of victims and/or commercial parties, and insurance markets’ evaluation of and reactions to catastrophic losses vary widely from country to country and jurisdiction. In this article, we discuss these responses and reactions in the cases of the Grenfell Tower Fire in London, England, and the Champlain Tower collapse in Surfside, Florida, within the United States. These two widely publicized losses involved different risk management and insurance considerations based on where they occurred. They also saw substantially different government responses and raised varied questions about what the next steps are for their respective commercial and insurance markets.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eric M. Clarkson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Clarkson may be contacted at
EClarkson@sdvlaw.com
Are Robotic Coworkers Soon a Reality in Construction?
March 24, 2026 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessGeneral-purpose humanoid robots are in the headlines, but is the hype justified? What’s the point of having a robot home assistant when it still needs a “guy behind the curtain” to control it remotely?
Despite the challenges, robots, even those that look like humans, are seriously considered as future coworkers in business environments.
According to the McKinsey report
‘Will embodied AI create robotic coworkers?‘ the idea that AI-powered robots will become general-purpose coworkers is grounded in real technological progress, but not an overnight reality.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
Course of Construction Exclusions and the CGL Policy
July 20, 2026 —
Anna M. Perry, Rachel S. Kindseth & Nina Catanzaro - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.I. Course of Construction Exclusions
Course of Construction (“COC”) exclusions are found on General Liability and excess liability policies, typically a wrap-up or project specific policy, and generally exclude “all property damage occurring during the course of construction.” Insurers claim COC exclusions are not problematic because they are intended to prevent an overlap in coverage between the general liability policy and first-party property Builder’s Risk policy. However, because General Liability policies and Builder’s Risk policies provide coverage for different risks, COC exclusions can create a gap in coverage for owners and contractors. Therefore, any exclusion on a wrap-up or project specific policy that limits coverage for property damage liability should be scrutinized, and amendments sought when warranted and commercially achievable, for owners, developers and contractors because General Liability policies do not cover the same risk as that of a Builder’s Risk policy.
General liability policies provide defense and indemnity to the insured(s) for claims made by a third-party against the insured. Broad COC exclusions serve to preclude coverage for all property damage, not just property damage to the insured project. This includes property damage to property other than the insured project, e.g. an adjacent property. On the other hand, Builder’s Risk policies provide first-party property coverage for direct physical loss to the project during the course of construction. The Builder’s Risk policy will not provide coverage for property other than the project itself (e.g., adjacent property) and it will not provide a defense or indemnity in the event the owner of the damaged property brings a claim against a potentially at-fault party.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.,
Rachel S. Kindseth, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Nina Catanzaro, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Perry may be contacted at APerry@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Kindseth may be contacted at rkindseth@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Catanzaro may be contacted at NCatanzaro@sdvlaw.com
Read the full story...
Building the Research and Healthcare Facilities of Tomorrow Without Impacting the Progress of Today
August 16, 2026 —
Jason Tobias - Construction ExecutiveResearch labs run experiments that can’t be paused. Hospitals treat patients around the clock. Yet these same facilities constantly need upgrades—new infrastructure, modernized systems, renovated spaces—to meet the demands of twenty-first century science and medicine. The challenge for construction teams isn’t just building. It’s building without ever turning the lights off.
This unique dynamic creates an environment where construction activities are happening adjacent to sensitive testing and treatment, a complex setting where disruptions can have serious consequences.
Skanska continues to successfully navigate these challenges across multiple sectors, including from occupied lab space at the
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s (NCDEQ) Reedy Creek Laboratory in Raleigh to hospital corridors alongside staff and patients in various hospital locations across the country.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Tobias, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the full story...
Segal McCambridge Shareholders and Associates Recognized in 2027 Best Lawyers in America®
September 01, 2026 —
Segal McCambridgeSegal McCambridge is pleased to announce that 24 firm shareholders and associates have been recognized in the 2027 editions of the Best Lawyers in America® and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. Best Lawyers® is an elite global network of legal professionals recognized through a trusted, peer-reviewed distinction. For more than four decades, its Purely Peer Review® methodology has upheld the principle that recognition should be earned through the opinions of fellow attorneys, not marketing influence or paid listings. No fees are accepted for consideration or inclusion.
"This Best Lawyers recognition is especially meaningful because it reflects the caliber of advocacy our attorneys bring to clients every day, across a wide range of practice areas," said Jason P. Eckerly, Segal McCambridge Managing Shareholder. "We are proud to see so many of our colleagues honored for their legal skills, dedication, and professionalism. This continued recognition underscores the strength of our national platform and the depth of talent across our firm."
Segal McCambridge's attorneys named in Best Lawyers in America® include:
Jason P. Eckerly; Chicago, IL; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
Scott R. Emery; New York, NY; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants
Jay Evans; Pittsburgh, PA; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
Richard H. Glucksman; Los Angeles, CA; Construction Law
Nathan R. Horne; Austin, TX; Construction Law; Litigation - Construction
Alice Sacks Johnston; Pittsburgh, PA; Commercial Litigation; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
Patrick M. Kemp; Austin, TX; Litigation - Insurance
Mitchell P. Morinec; Chicago, IL; Commercial Litigation
Anthony J. Sbarra, Jr.; Milton, MA; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
Alan J. Taylor; Southfield, MI; Litigation - Construction; Real Estate Law
Kenneth P. Williams; Southfield, MI; Insurance Law; Litigation - Insurance; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
David J. Yates; Southfield, MI; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Segal McCambridge's attorneys named in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America® include:
Masood Syed Ali; Chicago, IL; Labor and Employment Law - Management
Mari Bryn Dowdy; Austin, TX; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
Chaniece M. Hill; Chicago, IL; Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants
Mandy Kolodkin; Indianapolis, IN; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Jeffrey M. Marchese; New York, NY; Litigation - Construction
Courtney C. McLaren; Memphis, TN; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Benjamin J. Nellans; Chicago, IL; Commercial Litigation
Christopher P. Norton; Los Angeles, CA; Commercial Litigation
Nelson T. Rainey; Memphis, TN; Family Law; Health Care Law; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Nicholas E. Richardson; Tampa, FL; Insurance Law
Jordan B. Rosenberg; Philadelphia, PA; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Ian M. Sadler; Austin, TX; Commercial Litigation; Insurance Law
About Best Lawyers®
Best Lawyers® is an elite global network of legal professionals recognized through trusted, peer-reviewed distinction. For over four decades, its Purely Peer Review® methodology has upheld the principle that recognition should be earned through the opinions of fellow attorneys, not marketing influence or paid listings. Each year, millions of confidential evaluations are collected worldwide, contributing to one of the legal industry's most rigorous and trusted vetting processes. Only about 5% of lawyers in the United States and 3% globally are recognized, reflecting the selectivity and credibility of the results. No fees are accepted for consideration or inclusion, maintaining the integrity and independence of all recognitions. For more information, visit: www.bestlawyers.com.
About Segal McCambridge
Segal McCambridge has built a reputation as a national law firm of accomplished trial attorneys for almost four decades. Founded in 1986, the firm has grown from a four-lawyer shop in Chicago to a firm with more than 20 offices nationwide. The firm routinely counsels and defends clients, including Fortune 500 companies, corporations, and individuals, across the United States in complex litigation matters including, but not limited to: asbestos, class action, construction, employment, environmental, food and beverage, insurance coverage and bad faith, life sciences, product liability, professional liability, technology and cyber risk, transportation, and warranty. For more information, visit: www.segalmccambridge.com.
Prefatory Contract Language Cannot Be Used to Create an Ambiguity with Operative Provisions
May 12, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesContract drafting and interpretation matters.
A case dealt with the potential conflict with prefatory language in an agreement compared with operative provisions in the agreement. The trial court held that the operative provisions control. I discussed this case
here where the appellate court reversed based on the prefatory language.
But, through a motion for rehearing, the appellate court reconsidered its position and affirmed the trial court based on the operative provisions, mainly that the prefatory language cannot be used to create an ambiguity with operative provisions. Consider this explanation in affirming the trial court:
Because the trial court correctly found that the initial language in the contract was prefatory and could not be used to create an ambiguity in the remainder of the contract, we affirm the final judgment.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
