Top Developments 2025 - Issue 4
December 22, 2025 —
John S. Anooshian, Paul A. Briganti, Elizabeth L. Ferguson, Alexandra M. George & Haley S. Newman - The Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter“ARISING OUT OF”
Rowe v. State Mut. Ins. Co., 2025 Me. LEXIS 89 (Me., Sept. 23, 2025)
Maine Supreme Court, in the premises liability context, holds that an exclusion in a mobile homeowners policy for injury or damage "arising out of a premises . . . that is not an insured location'” precluded coverage for underlying negligent failure-to-warn claims. The court looked to authority from a workers compensation case, where it stated that “the term ‘arising out of' employment means that there must be some causal connection between the conditions under which the employee worked and the injury, or that the injury, in some proximate way, had its origin, its source, or its cause in the employment. . . . [T]he employment need not be the sole or predominant causal factor for the injury and . . . the causative circumstance need not have been foreseen or expected.” In this case, it found there to be “an immediate relationship between the injury and a condition of the uninsured premises” (specifically, a gap created by the owner-insured at the entrance to a mobile home), and rejected the claimant’s argument that the injury instead arose from the insureds’ negligent conduct in failing to warn. Separately, the court held that the property did not qualify as an “insured location,” reasoning it was not listed in the declarations and there was no evidence the insureds had resided there or acquired it for use as a residence.
Reprinted courtesy of
John S. Anooshian, White and Williams LLP,
Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP,
Elizabeth L. Ferguson, White and Williams LLP,
Alexandra M. George, White and Williams LLP and
Haley S. Newman, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Anooshian may be contacted at anooshianj@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Ferguson may be contacted at fergusone@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Newman may be contacted at newmanh@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the full story...
Civil Megaprojects: The Evolving Use of Dispute Prevention and Collaborative Delivery Methods in Public Contracting
January 13, 2026 —
Lisa D. Love - The Dispute ResolverCivil megaprojects are large, complex ventures in civil engineering and construction that typically cost over $1 billion to construct. These projects generally have significant and long-lasting impacts on the economy, environment and society, and involve multiple public and private stakeholders. Typical civil megaprojects include infrastructure projects, such as highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, dams, power plants and public buildings, which require extensive planning, design, coordination and construction over an extended period of time.
In the United States, there is over $500 billion worth of civil megaprojects in the pipeline, with an average of four megaprojects per month in 2024 and a total monthly value of $9.2 billion.[i] Here are some recent examples of civil megaprojects:
The Hudson Tunnel Project (a portion of the Gateway Program), under construction in the states of New York and New Jersey, involves the construction of two new tunnels and the renovation of aging rail tunnels used by Amtrak and New Jersey Transit that were damaged by Superstorm Sandy along the Northeast Corridor. This has been deemed one of the most important infrastructure projects in the country. It is projected to be completed in 2027 at a cost of over $16 billion.[ii]
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lisa D. Love, JAMS
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.
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
Reducing Rework on Construction Projects Benefits Budget, Schedule and Financial Loss
February 10, 2026 —
Brian Clarke - Construction ExecutiveThe costs of not building it right the first time is statistically staggering—some research suggests up to 20% of the total project costs. This article highlights the costs of re-work, provides a financial worksheet to track the costs of re-work, and a trusted tool to help reduce the impact of re-work.
Typically, when discussing rework, one thinks of the labor and material costs, but there are other costs associated with rework that are less easily quantified:
- Liquidated damages and related legal costs
- Potential for increasing safety incidents associated with rework
- Morale loss due to performing rework
- Loss of previously trained workers due to delays caused by rework
- Reputational loss and the inability to bid on future work
- Challenges of future work to be performed due to schedule delays on a current project
Reprinted courtesy of
Brian Clarke, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Mr. Clarke may be contacted at brianclarke1121@aol.com
Read the full story...
GRSM Marks Seventh Anniversary as First and Only Full-Service Law Firm in All 50 States, Climbs to #70 on Am Law 100
April 20, 2026 —
Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani proudly celebrates the seventh anniversary of its becoming the first and only full-service law firm with offices and attorneys in all 50 states. Since launching its innovative 50-state platform in April 2019, GRSM has experienced extraordinary growth across markets, practices, and client relationships.
In the past seven years, GRSM has expanded its footprint with 20 new offices in both major and secondary markets and doubled its attorney headcount, growing from 940 to more than 2000 lawyers. This growth has propelled GRSM from the 40th to the 11th largest law firm in the United States, according to Law360, while also driving a significant rise on the Am Law 100 rankings, from #103 in 2019 to #70 in 2026. GRSM has served nearly half of the Fortune 500, a testament to its deep bench of lawyers and national capabilities.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
White and Williams LLP Recognized on the List of Largest Law Firms in Greater Philadelphia
March 03, 2026 —
White and Williams LLPWhite and Williams LLP was recently recognized on the list of Largest Law Firms in Greater Philadelphia by the Philadelphia Business Journal. The Firm is ranked #10 among the largest law firms in the Greater Philadelphia area.
This listing ranks over 500 law firms in the counties of Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, or Philadelphia in Pennsylvania; Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, or Gloucester in New Jersey, and Kent or New Castle in Delaware. White and Williams has been named on the list since 2023.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
Appraisal Award Upheld Despite Insurer’s Contention that Causation was Considered
February 23, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court in Tennessee granted the insured’s motion for summary judgment finding the appraisal award was properly determined despite the insurer’s argument that the appraisal panel considered causation of the loss. Nashville Communications, Inc. v. Auto-Owners (Mutual) Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223455 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 13, 2025)
A windstorm struck and damaged the building owned and insured by Nashville Communications (NashComm). A claim was submitted to the insurer, Auto-Owners, for damage to the roof and interior water leakage. Auto-Owners acknowledged that there was some amount of wind damage to the building from the wind event.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
