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.
PJM’s Reliability Backstop Procurement Proposal—Fast-Track Capacity to Meet Rising Large-Load Demand
May 12, 2026 —
Stephen J. Humes, Alicia M. McKnight, Jason Drogin Atwood & Andrew H. Jacobs - Gravel2GavelIn January, we discussed the Statement of Principles jointly signed by the National Energy Dominance Council and governors across the mid-Atlantic region—framing accelerating demand (especially from large-scale data centers) as an emergency reliability issue for PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), the nation’s largest power grid operator. That policy signal is now becoming a near-term, accelerated procurement and contracting exercise. On April 8, 2026, PJM notified stakeholders of a critical issue fast path reliability backstop procurement process. PJM subsequently released a request for information (RFI) with respect to a proposed Reliability Backstop Procurement (RBP)—a one-time mechanism intended to attract significant new capacity to address projected reliability shortfalls driven by large-load growth.
RBP compresses what is often a multiyear market and regulatory conversation into a fast-moving set of commercial choices. Developers, large loads, utilities and capital providers should be preparing now for (i) an accelerated bilateral contracting window and (ii) a standardized PJM-led backstop procurement if bilateral deals do not clear enough capacity.
Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen J. Humes, Pillsbury,
Alicia M. McKnight, Pillsbury,
Jason Drogin Atwood, Pillsbury and
Andrew H. Jacobs, Pillsbury
Mr. Humes may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. McKnight may be contacted at alicia.mcknight@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Atwood may be contacted at jason.atwood@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Jacobs may be contacted at andrew.jacobs@pillsburylaw.com
Read the full story...
Colorado’s New Mechanics’ Lien Protections: What S.B. 26-074 Means for Your Next Project
October 27, 2026 —
Maria Conversa - Snell & WilmerStarting August 12, 2026, Colorado’s mechanics’ lien statute underwent its most significant update in years. Colorado’s General Assembly enacted Senate Bill 26-074 on April 6, 2026, and the new law directly addressed a problem that has plagued contractors and subcontractors for decades. For years, a contractor and subcontractor who filed a lien for the full amount it believed was due — particularly when that amount included disputed costs, delay damages, or lost productivity — risked triggering the “excessive lien” penalty. That penalty could force the claimant to forfeit its lien rights entirely and pay the other side’s attorney fees. The new law expands the categories of costs to be claimed by good-faith lien claimants, while still protecting against truly abusive filings. General contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, owners, and lenders all need to understand these changes.
What the Bill Changed
1. Lien Value May Include Disputed Amounts
The bill amends the core lien statute to insert the phrase “whether disputed or undisputed” into the description of lienable value. Prior law referenced only “the value” of labor, services, or materials furnished. The new text confirms that a lien can attach for amounts the parties still dispute. A claimant no longer needs the owner or general contractor to agree on the amount before filing.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Maria Conversa, Snell & WilmerMs. Conversa may be contacted at
mconversa@swlaw.com
Supply Chain Is a Legal Exposure—Not Just a Force Majeure Problem
September 08, 2026 —
Owen Newman - Construction ExecutiveThis is not another force majeure article. The supply-chain related legal exposure that contractors are carrying today—in sanctions risk, specification non-compliance, warranty exposure and regulatory volatility—extends well beyond what even a well-drafted force majeure clause protects.
An engineering, procurement and construction contractor on a gas-fired power plant discovers during commissioning that transformer oil in a critical unit contains Russian-origin naphthenic base oil, which is a prohibited source under Office of Foreign Assets Control sanctions. The contractor didn’t source it. A subsupplier two tiers below made the substitution when disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz tightened the primary supply chain for this specialty product and no one in the purchase-order chain flagged it. The procurement decision is long done and the documentation trail that should have caught it doesn’t exist.
Reprinted courtesy of
Owen Newman, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the full story...Mr. Newman may be contacted at
oknewman@duanemorris.com
Pursuing Claims for Loss Caused by Recent Kona Low Storms for Homeowners and Businesses
May 12, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe recent Kona Low storms that hit all islands were devastating, causing significant property damage. Homeowners and businesses will be seeking coverage under their insurance policies to recover for their losses. Here is a brief look at what may be covered and which exclusions may be troublesome in homeowners’ and commercial property policies.
Typically, both a homeowners’ policy and a commercial property policy include a grant of coverage for “direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property.” Covered perils are listed, including such events as fire, lightning, or windstorm. Covered Property includes dwellings, other structures on the property and personal property. Additional coverages are usually provided. This includes debris removal after a peril insured against or collapse of a structure. In a homeowners’ policy, additional living expenses are likely covered when the damaged home is not fit to live in.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
California Poised for the Most Significant Residential Construction Defect Reforms in Decades
September 01, 2026 —
Thomas D. Fama & Andrew J. Mallon - Wood Smith Henning BermanThe California Legislature is considering legislation that would dramatically alter the landscape of residential construction defect litigation. Assembly Bill 1903, currently pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee, proposes extensive amendments to California's Right to Repair Act (Civil Code sections 895-945.5) that would substantially strengthen procedural protections for builders while narrowing the scope of recoverable construction defect claims.
If enacted, the legislation would affect virtually every stage of a construction defect dispute- from the initial notice of claim through litigation and settlement- and would introduce an entirely new certification process for newly constructed condominium projects. This article details some of the most significant proposed changes.
Higher Burden for Construction Defect Plaintiffs
Perhaps the most consequential change is the bill's modification of the proof required to establish liability. current law generally requires a claimant to demonstrate the residence fails to satisfy one of the statutory performance standards established under the Right to Repair Act. AB1903 would instead require claimants to establish three separate elements:
- A violation of an applicable statutory performance standard;
- The violation caused appreciable, present, non-speculative physical damage to another building component; and
- The violation resulted from the original construction.
Reprinted courtesy of
Thomas D. Fama, Wood Smith Henning Berman and
Andrew J. Mallon, Wood Smith Henning Berman
Mr. Fama may be contacted at tfama@wshblaw.com
Mr. Mallon may be contacted at amallon@wshblaw.com
Read the full story...
What Massachusetts Contractors and Developers Can Learn from Cannistraro v. Columbia Construction
July 13, 2026 —
Anthony LaPlaca & Luke Marston - The Construction SeytIntroduction
On June 26, 2026 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its decision in J.C. Cannistraro, LLC v. Columbia Construction Co.—a holding that sits at the intersection of Prompt Pay Act compliance and the Massachusetts Arbitration Act.
[1]
Most already know that the Massachusetts Prompt Pay Act (PPA) imposes strict timing and certification requirements for rejecting payment applications and proposed change orders on projects valued at $3 million or more. Most notably, the PPA requires the paying party to give the payee written notice of its approval or rejection of progress applications and proposed changes within 15 days of receipt, which notice must include a “factual and contractual basis for the rejection” and must be “certified as made in good faith.”
[2] In the absence of a timely certified notice, payment is “deemed to be approved” unless the payor properly rejects payment before it comes due.
[3]
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony LaPlaca, Seyfarth Shaw LLP and
Luke Marston, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Mr. LaPlaca may be contacted at alaplaca@seyfarth.com
Mr. Marston may be contacted at lmarston@seyfarth.com
Read the full story...
Owner Taking Assignment of General Contractor’s Claims Against a Subcontractor(s)
September 21, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesHere’s a scenario that occurs in construction defect cases. An owner sues a general contractor and subs for construction defects. The owner settles with a number of parties and takes an assignment of the general contractor’s claims against some or all of the subs and pursues the remaining parties for indemnity based on the assignment of the general contractor’s claims.
This was the scenario in Craftsman Plastering and Lath, Inc. v. Rath Mor, LLC, 2026 WL 2328032 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026). The owner settled with the general contractor and all subs except one. The owner took an assignment of the general contractor’s claim against the sub, and really the indemnity claim. The owner was then substituted as the real party in interest as it relates to the general contractor’s claims against the sub. The owner sought roughly $780,000 in attorney’s fees and costs in connection with the dispute claiming the sub was liable for such fees. The jury didn’t buy the argument and awarded the owner about $55,000. Basically, the jury seemingly prorated the fees by the number of parties, at least, that’s how the math worked out. The owner didn’t like that and moved for an additur to increase the jury’s verdict which the trial court granted. This was reversed on appeal despite the fact that a trial court has broad discretion to grant a motion for additur.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
