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.
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
2026 Top Business Risks for Construction and Engineering Companies
May 26, 2026 —
Darren Tasker - Construction ExecutiveThe 2026 Allianz Risk Barometer revealed some surprising findings for construction and engineering businesses. Now in its fifteenth year, this
annual business risk ranking by corporate insurer
Allianz Commercial incorporates the views of 3,338 global risk management professionals on the main perils on their radar for the year.
Survey respondents included construction and engineering risk experts who identified the threats keeping them up at night. Here is how they ranked the top industry risks for 2026:
Natural Catastrophes
Natural catastrophe risk retains the top spot, with 38% of construction and engineering respondents citing this risk as their leading concern for 2026. From the insurance perspective, economic and insured losses remained high, albeit lower than the 10-year average. The evolving nature of natural catastrophes continues to pose significant challenges to businesses and the (re)insurance industry. Insured losses from natural catastrophes are set to reach $107 billion for 2025, according to Swiss Re—the sixth year in a row they have exceeded $100 billion, while economic losses are well in excess of $200 billion.
Reprinted courtesy of
Darren Tasker, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the full story...
Colorado Legislature Considers Series of Bills Aimed at Boosting Affordable Housing Construction in Colorado — What Homebuilders Need to Know
April 08, 2026 —
Amanda E. McKinlay - Snell & WilmerOn January 21, 2026, lawmakers introduced a series of bills with the goals of addressing affordable housing issues and incentivizing construction in Colorado.
House Bill 26-1001 (known as the “Housing Opportunities Made Easier ‘HOME’ Act”) concerns the promotion for residential developments on “qualifying properties” that do not contain exempt parcels through the bypassing of often time-consuming local planning processes. Under HB26-1001, a “qualifying property is any real property that contains no more than five acres of land and is owned by: (i) a nonprofit organization with a demonstrated history of providing affordable housing; (ii) a nonprofit organization that provides public transit; (iii) a nonprofit organization that has entered into an agreement with another nonprofit organization with a demonstrated history of providing affordable housing, provided that the agreement requires the nonprofit organization with a demonstrated history of providing affordable housing to develop a residential development on the property; (iv) a school district; (v) a state college or university; (vi) a housing authority; or (vii) a local or regional transit district or a regional transportation authority serving one or more counties.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Amanda E. McKinlay, Snell & WilmerMs. McKinlay may be contacted at
amckinlay@swlaw.com
Sausage-Making Often Relies on the Good Sense of the Chef Rather than the Recipe
June 23, 2026 —
Garret D. Murai - California Construction Law BlogEven for lawyers, the rules governing litigation can get complex and convoluted. Does something need to be filed? What needs to be filed? When is the deadline for filing?
Simple questions with not always with straightforward answers.
This was the case in
R & J Sheet Metal, Inc. v. W.E. O’Neil Construction Co. of California, 111 Cal.App.5th 878 (2025), which involved sheet metal panels lost when they fell into the Port of Long Beach harbor.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret D. Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
The Modern Nuclear Renaissance Reaches New England
April 14, 2026 —
Stephen J. Humes - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogOn March 31, 2026, the governors of all six New England states issued a joint, bipartisan statement committing the region to explore deployment of advanced nuclear energy technologies while supporting the continued safe, affordable and reliable operation of New England’s existing nuclear generation facilities. This coordinated regional initiative follows a major policy announcement in June 2025 by New York Governor Kathy Hochul directing the New York Power Authority to pursue development of at least 1,000 MW of advanced nuclear generation to support statewide reliability needs and New York’s zero‑carbon mission. Less than one year after New York formally embraced a modern nuclear renaissance, that renaissance has now expanded across the New England states—signaling a broader Northeast regional pivot toward nuclear as a core element of long‑term reliability, affordability and decarbonization strategies. For utilities and power generators, this shift creates both opportunities and planning imperatives that warrant immediate attention.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen J. Humes, PillsburyMr. Humes may be contacted at
stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com
SDNY Ruling Highlights Privilege Risks in Client Use of Generative AI
March 03, 2026 —
Christopher J. Olsen, Freddy X. Muñoz & Gary M. Stein - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Artificial intelligence is quickly becoming a go‑to tool for aggregating and summarizing large volumes of data, formulating and testing arguments, and even sketching litigation strategies. But a recent ruling from the Southern District of New York serves as a stark warning: when clients turn to generative AI for legal strategy, they may be unknowingly turning privileged information over to a third party and then creating documents that may later be discoverable in litigation. In a closely watched bench decision, Judge Rakoff ruled that AI‑generated documents created by the target of a criminal investigation using Anthropic’s Claude were not privileged despite being generated with information learned from his attorneys to support his potential legal defense and then shared with his counsel. The decision highlights the unresolved and increasingly consequential intersection of AI, privilege, and discovery.
Facts
Bradley Heppner received a grand jury subpoena and hired attorneys at Quinn Emanuel to represent him. After learning he was a target of the investigation, but before he was arrested, he created 31 documents with Claude using information from his attorneys to outline a potential defense strategy. He was later arrested on charges of securities and wire fraud, and federal agents seized his electronic devices, which contained the 31 documents that had been provided to his attorneys. Mr. Heppner argued that the documents were created to prepare his potential defense strategy in anticipation of an indictment, but he conceded that he made the decision to prepare the reports on his own, i.e., not at the direction of counsel. He nevertheless claimed the documents were protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine; the government moved to overrule the objections.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher J. Olsen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.,
Freddy X. Muñoz, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Gary M. Stein, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Olsen may be contacted at colsen@pecklaw.com
Mr. Muñoz may be contacted at fmunoz@pecklaw.com
Mr. Stein may be contacted at gstein@pecklaw.com
Read the full story...
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...
