Substantial Evidence of Flood Loss is Not a Substitute for Required Proof of Loss
April 20, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court found that the insurer properly denied the insured’s claim for loss due to flood because a proof of loss was never submitted. Bay Haven at Coco Bay Condominium Association, Inc. v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6847 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 14, 2026).
Bay Haven managed several condo buildings. When Hurricane Ian hit, it caused significant flood damage to these properties. Bay Haven held federal flood insurance policies through Hartford under “Write-Your-Own” policies. This meant Hartford was essentially a fiscal agent that managed policies and handled claims but paid them using federal funds.
Following the storm, FEMA extended the usual 60-day deadline for filing a proof of loss to one year, or until September 28, 2023. Bay Haven did not submit its proofs of loss until November 2023. FEMA granted an extension but only for the specific amounts in the November requests. Hartford did not waive the 60-day proof of loss requirement for any other proof of loss. Hartford paid the amounts reflected in the November submissions.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Insurer Granted Summary Judgment, in Part, After Partial Payment of Claim
February 10, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurer was awarded summary judgment, in part, after paying a portion of the insured’s claim for hurricane damage. Taylor v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231406 (S.D. Ala. Nov. 24, 2025).
The Taylors’ home was damaged by Hurricane Sally. They submitted a claim under their homeowners’ policy to State Farm. They reported trees collapsing onto the house and blocking the front door, broken windows and doors, water damage and the roof collapsing in certain rooms of the house.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Managing Rising Costs and Shifting Legal Risk for Florida High-Rise and Condominium Projects
May 05, 2026 —
Stephen Hauptman - Ball Janik LLPFlorida's construction defect landscape is experiencing a major shift. The convergence of material and labor cost volatility, regulatory tightening, and increasingly complex litigation strategies is forcing associations, developers, and their counsel to rethink how they approach risk management and dispute resolution. For those managing large-scale condo and high-rise projects, the stakes have never been higher.
The Cost Volatility Trap
Construction material prices rose at a "staggering" 12.6% annualized rate during the first two months of 2026, according to
recent industry analysis. Tariff impacts are projected to lead to more increases of 5.4% to 6.8%, depending on property type. For associations facing construction defect claims, this volatility creates a cascading problem: repair scopes defined two years ago are now dramatically underpriced, and damage calculations that appeared reasonable at discovery are obsolete by the time of settlement.
Courts and mediators are increasingly scrutinizing how cost estimates were developed and whether they account for existing market circumstances. Associations must now commission updated repair assessments more frequently, a practice that increases investigation costs but strengthens the credibility of damage claims. Conversely, defendants are weaponizing cost inflation as a defense, arguing that claimed damages are speculative or inflated. The practical result: repair sequencing and phasing strategies have become critical litigation tools. Associations that can demonstrate a rational, cost-effective repair plan tied to current market data are more favorably placed in settlement negotiations.
Regulatory Pressure and Deliberate Timing
Florida's 2026 condo compliance regime has significantly changed the defect claims landscape. Elevated transparency requirements, stricter reserve funding mandates, and tightened building safety inspection protocols mean that associations now face dual pressures: Comply with new regulations while simultaneously handling construction defect exposure.
This regulatory environment is changing investigation and documentation strategy. Associations that delay defect investigation to avoid triggering reserve funding obligations or disclosure requirements are taking on considerable legal risk. Recent case law such as the Third District Court of Appeal's reaffirmation of Chapter 558's pre-suit mediation requirements, underscores Florida's intent to resolve disputes early. Associations that move deliberately and record carefully during the pre-suit phase gain leverage in mediation and reduce the risk of expensive litigation.
Timing also intersects with repair sequencing. Associations must now balance the urgency of compliance inspections against the strategic advantage of phased repairs. Some associations are using compliance deadlines as a forcing mechanism to accelerate settlement discussions, while others are sequencing repairs to demonstrate good-faith remediation efforts before litigation commences.
The Emerging Risk Transfer Challenge
As construction defect claims grow more complex and costly, the traditional risk transfer systems, such as design-build warranties, contractor bonds, and insurance, are proving inadequate. Developers and general contractors are increasingly shifting risk to subcontractors and material suppliers, fragmenting liability and complicating recovery efforts for associations. Permitting and approval friction is also creating new litigation pressure points. Delays in municipal approvals, changes to building code interpretations, and disputes over remedial work compliance continue to spawn collateral claims that go beyond the original defect. Associations must now anticipate not only defect liability but also regulatory compliance disputes with municipalities, creating a dual-front legal challenge.
For large communities, this means reconsidering the entire risk architecture. Insurance carriers are tightening coverage, and traditional indemnification chains are breaking down. Forward-thinking associations are engaging counsel earlier in the development process to negotiate clearer risk allocation provisions and more robust insurance requirements.
Taking a Data-Driven Approach
Managing rising costs and shifting legal risk in Florida's high-rise and condo market requires a more sophisticated, data-driven approach. Associations must commission frequent cost updates, move deliberately through pre-suit investigation and mediation, and challenge traditional assumptions about risk transfer. Developers and their counsel should view regulatory compliance not as a burden but as an opportunity to demonstrate good-faith risk management and strengthen settlement positioning.
The firms and associations that succeed in 2026 will be those that treat cost volatility, regulatory change, and litigation strategy not as separate challenges but as linked elements of a coherent risk management framework.
Stephen Hauptman is special counsel in Ball Janik LLP’s Fort Lauderdale office. He may be reached at shauptman@balljanik.com.
Kahana Feld Announces Key Partner Additions Coast to Coast
June 22, 2026 —
Kahana FeldIRVINE, CA – June 10, 2026 – Kahana Feld is pleased to announce
Yvette Davis,
Evan Kalooky,
Beth Obra-White,
Sean Paden,
Michael Parme,
Jeffrey Schmid, and
Julieanne Yanez have joined the firm as partners. Four of these partners are joining the San Diego office, which further strengthens the firm’s General Liability and Construction Litigation practices and enhances Kahana Feld’s ability to serve clients across a broad range of complex matters in the region.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kahana Feld
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...
Louisiana Legislature Enacts Act 932 – Significant Changes to Insurer Bad-Faith Exposure for Failure to Settle
July 13, 2026 —
Tabitha R. Durbin & Jennifer E. Michel - Lewis BrisboisThe Louisiana Legislature has enacted Act 932 (formerly House Bill 1162), which became law this week without the Governor's signature pursuant to the Louisiana Constitution, after expiration of the applicable constitutional review period. Act 932 makes several important amendments to Louisiana's insurer bad-faith statute and appears intended, at least in part, to address issues arising from the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision in Kelly v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 169 So.3d 328 (La. 2015). The Act also makes changes regarding claim payments involving licensed contractors. The Act takes effect on August 1, 2026.
Key Takeaways
Act 932:
- Limits certain bad-faith causes of action (bad faith failure to settle) involving personal injury and bodily injury claims where good-faith disputes exist or where an insurer has not been afforded sufficient opportunity to respond to a settlement demand.
- Requires insurers and adjusters to verify a contractor's Louisiana license status before issuing claim payments when a contractor is named as a payee on a check for repair or restoration of immovable property.
- Creates a statutory safe harbor protecting insurers from bad-faith penalties and attorney fees when payment delays result from an inability to verify a contractor's license, provided specified documentation and notice requirements are met.
Reprinted courtesy of
Tabitha R. Durbin, Lewis Brisbois and
Jennifer E. Michel, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Durbin may be contacted at Tabitha.Durbin@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Michel may be contacted at Jenny.Michel@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the full story...
Appeals Court Upholds Skanska, Granite Win in ‘I-4 Ultimate’ JV Dispute
June 15, 2026 —
Bryan Gottlieb - Engineering News-RecordA federal appeals court has upheld a lower court’s decision requiring The Lane Construction Corp. to pay roughly $79 million in damages, plus interest, to joint venture partners Skanska USA Civil Southeast and Granite Construction for work on Florida’s I-4 Ultimate highway megaproject in Orlando, which was completed in 2022.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bryan Gottlieb, Engineering News-RecordMr. Gottlieb may be contacted at
gottliebb@enr.com
Navigating the New Frontier of Federal-State Energy Regulation: What Energy Companies Need to Know
June 08, 2026 —
Ryan J. Regula - Snell & WilmerIntroduction
The jurisdictional boundary between the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the states is being actively contested, from challenges to landmark transmission planning rules to disputes over emergency cost-allocation orders, in ways that carry significant legal, financial, and operational implications for energy companies. For utilities, independent power producers, and transmission developers, understanding these dynamics is now a strategic imperative.
The Jurisdictional Divide: A Bright Line That Isn’t
The Federal Power Act divides authority between FERC and the states: FERC exercises jurisdiction over interstate transmission and wholesale electricity sales, while states retain authority over generation facilities, retail rates, and decisions about resource mix. The D.C. Circuit has regularly been called upon to “referee the Federal Power Act’s jurisdictional line separating [FERC’s] jurisdiction over the federal wholesale market and States’ jurisdiction over facilities used in local distribution.”1
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ryan J. Regula, Snell & WilmerMr. Regula may be contacted at
rregula@swlaw.com
