Modular Construction’s Hidden Risk: Where Things Go Wrong Between the Factory and the Field
June 15, 2026 —
Jack Mayo - ConsensusDocsIntroduction
As modular and prefabricated construction methods are increasingly adopted, so too are the potential challenges that come with them. The appeal is straightforward: faster timelines, controlled fabrication environments, and reduced on-site labor demands. But the risks that accompany these benefits are often less clear—and, in many cases, poorly defined.
For example, what happens when a prefabricated component is delayed past its installation window? Who is responsible for a defect discovered inside a sealed, installed module? What happens to warranty obligations when a prefabricated component must be modified on site?
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jack Mayo, Jones Walker LLPMr. Mayo may be contacted at
jmayo@joneswalker.com
White and Williams LLP Secures a Clean Sweep Dismissal of Architect's Professional Liability Coverage Lawsuit
August 16, 2026 —
Daniel E. Bryer & Brendaliz Minaya Ruiz - White and Williams LLPWhite and Williams LLP achieved a complete dismissal of professional liability coverage claims through a strategic defense led by Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith Practice Group attorneys Daniel E. Bryer, Partner and Brendaliz Minaya Ruiz, Associate.
In a nuanced action styled, Vincent Cusumano Architect P.C., et al. v. Berkshire Hathaway Direct Insurance Company, et al., decided in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, plaintiffs asserted twelve pre-contractual and contractual-based causes of action against their liability insurer, Berkshire Hathaway Direct Insurance Company, and its insurance agent (collectively, “Defendants”) for denying a professional liability claim arising from plaintiffs’ prior work.
Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel E. Bryer, White and Williams LLP and
Brendaliz Minaya Ruiz, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Bryer may be contacted at bryerd@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Ruiz may be contacted at minayaruizb@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the full story...
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
Seventh Circuit, With an Assist From the Illinois Supreme Court, Finds That “Pollution Exclusion” Bars Coverage For Emissions Allowed Under Regulatory Permit
April 20, 2026 —
Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogIn Griffith Foods Int’l Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 24-1217 & 24-1223 (7th Cir. Mar. 13, 2026), the Seventh Circuit addressed the meaning and scope of a pollution exclusion in a standard-form commercial general liability insurance policy for underlying injuries caused by ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions. The insurance dispute arose out of underlying tort litigation involving bodily injury claims, including cancer, allegedly caused by emissions of ethylene oxide over a 35-year period from 1984 through 2019 by Griffith Foods International and later Sterigenics U.S. The pollution exclusion at issue generally barred coverage for “bodily injury” arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants.
Interpreting similar exclusions, the Illinois Supreme Court has previously held that the standard CGL pollution exclusion bars coverage for bodily injuries caused by traditional environmental pollution (essentially industrial emissions of pollutants), but not by more commonplace emissions (such as carbon monoxide from a residential furnace or excess chlorine in a backyard swimming pool). See American States Insurance Co. v. Koloms, 177 Ill. 2d 473 (Ill. 1997). In Griffith Foods, the District Court initially concluded that the pollution exclusion did not apply because the companies emitted EtO pursuant to a permit issued by the IEPA. The District Court reached this latter conclusion by applying Erie Insurance Exchange v. Imperial Marble Corp., 957 N.E.2d 1214 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011), an Illinois intermediate appellate court decision finding it ambiguous whether a CGL policy’s pollution exclusion barred coverage for emissions authorized by regulatory permit.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Taylor, Traub LiebermanMr. Taylor may be contacted at
jtaylor@tlsslaw.com
Snell & Wilmer Recognized With Top Honor in Ranking Arizona: Top Law Firms for 2026
June 22, 2026 —
Snell & WilmerPHOENIX – Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that the firm has been voted as the top law firm in Arizona for the 17th consecutive year in the 2026 edition of AZ Big Media’s
Ranking Arizona: The Best of Arizona Business. The firm was again recognized in the category of “Top 10 large law firms in Arizona” which looked at firms with 39 attorneys or more.
“We are honored to receive this award recognizing our team’s ongoing commitment to excellence in service of our clients, our community, and each other,” said Firm Chair Barbara J. Dawson. “We are proud to play a meaningful role in supporting the strength and growth of Arizona’s vibrant business environment amid a rapidly changing global economy.”
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Snell & Wilmer
Beyond the Storm: How Non-Hurricane Catastrophes Expose Florida’s Construction Defect Blind Spot
August 11, 2026 —
Franchesco “Frank” Soto & Amanda L. Gonzalez - Ball JanikOn June 8, 2026, a magnitude 6.1 earthquake struck the Gulf near the coast of Cuba, the largest instrumentally recorded earthquake in the Gulf since seismic monitoring began in 1950. Buildings swayed, offices were evacuated, and many residents along the east coast of Florida, from Miami-Dade to Jacksonville, felt the ground shake. Although no tsunami followed and reported structural damage was limited, this event exposed a blind spot that Florida property owners, developers, and their counsel cannot afford to ignore: catastrophic stress on Florida buildings does not always come in the form of a named storm.
Florida property owners have grown accustomed to preparing for wind, storm surge, floods, and torrential rain. Far less attention is paid to earthquakes, sinkholes, tornadoes, hail, and non-tropical flooding, each of which can place unexpected stress on buildings not designed with those forces top of mind and can trigger deficiencies in buildings that were not otherwise known, expose design failures, and create an urgency for both insurance claims and subsequent litigation.
Non-Hurricane Triggers of Latent Defects
Seismic activity is the clearest example. Florida’s building code accounts for wind loads, not seismic forces, meaning even a moderate earthquake can reveal weaknesses in curtain wall systems, structural connections, or foundations that were already marginal. Sinkholes, driven by Florida’s karst limestone geology, remain a persistent threat, particularly in Central Florida, where subsurface voids can undermine foundations without warning. Non-tropical flooding, like the record rainfall that flooded South Florida in June 2024, can intrude through building envelopes and waterproofing systems that were never stress-tested for such volumes of water. Tornadoes and hail, while more localized, can cause roofing and envelope failures that mimic, mask, or trigger latent construction defects.
The Litigation and Coverage Disputes That Follow
When one of these events strikes a building already carrying undisclosed or unresolved construction defects, the resulting disputes become considerably more complex. Property owners and associations must move quickly to document existing conditions and distinguish damage caused by the event from pre-existing defective construction, the same causation issue that arises in the hurricane context under Chapter 558, but often without the benefit of established precedent or adjuster experience with these less common events.
Insurance coverage disputes frequently follow close behind. Carriers may dispute whether an earthquake, flood, or other peril is covered at all, particularly where policies contain earthquake or flood exclusions requiring separate endorsements, or anti-concurrent causation language that can bar coverage entirely when a covered peril combines with an uncovered one, such as pre-existing defective construction, to cause a loss. Sinkhole claims carry their own statutory framework under Florida law, requiring specific testing protocols and reporting before a claim is compensable. Developers and contractors, in turn, may find themselves defending Chapter 558 claims while simultaneously litigating with their own carriers over defense and indemnity obligations.
Practical Risk Mitigation Strategies
Property owners, associations, and developers can take several concrete steps to reduce their exposure. First, maintain thorough documentation, including engineering reports, maintenance logs, and photographs, well before any event occurs. This documentation is often the deciding factor in causation disputes. Second, engage structural engineers and consultants immediately following any seismic event, unusual flooding, or storm damage, regardless of whether a hurricane is involved. Prompt inspection preserves evidence and can help prevent inadvertent waiver of construction defect claims. Third, review insurance policies regularly with counsel or a broker to confirm earthquake, flood, and sinkhole coverage matches the property’s actual risk profile, rather than assuming a standard property policy responds to every peril. Fourth, avoid rushing to remediate before conditions are documented and/or before consulting counsel. Well-intentioned repairs can inadvertently compromise evidence needed to prove a defect claim.
The June earthquake was a reminder that Florida’s catastrophic risk profile extends beyond hurricane season. Property owners, associations, and developers who build readiness plans around all forms of catastrophic stress, not just named storms, will be far better positioned when the next unexpected event occurs.
Franchesco “Frank” Soto is a partner in
Ball Janik’s Construction Defect Practice Group in Miami. He may be reached at fsoto@balljanik.com.
Amanda L. Gonzalez is a litigation attorney in
Ball Janik’s Construction Defect Practice Group in Miami. She may be reached at agonzalez@balljanik.com.
Arizona Court of Appeals Clarifies Homeowners Association Open Meeting Requirements
June 29, 2026 —
Jill Casson Owen, Benjamin J. Hawkins & Stephen Wright - Snell & WilmerA Z N H Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0424 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2026)
OVERVIEW
The Arizona Court of Appeals issued an opinion clarifying how homeowners associations must conduct meetings under A.R.S. § 33-1804. The decision reinforces the legislative policy favoring transparency in association governance, bringing association meeting requirements more in line with the open meeting standards applicable to public bodies under A.R.S. § 38-431 et seq. (Arizona’s Open Meeting Law).
KEY HOLDINGS
1. All Voting and Formal Actions Must Occur in Open Meetings
The Court affirmed that association boards cannot vote or take formal action during closed (executive) sessions. Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), associations may close portions of meetings only for “consideration” of certain enumerated topics, such as legal advice, pending litigation, or personal/financial information about individual members. The Court interpreted “consideration” to mean discussion and deliberation, not voting. The Court noted that dictionaries define “consider” as “spending time thinking about a possibility” and “formulating an opinion,” which are processes that precede formal action. This interpretation mirrors how Arizona’s Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 38-431.03(D)) prohibits public bodies from voting in executive session.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jill Casson Owen, Snell & Wilmer,
Benjamin J. Hawkins, Snell & Wilmer and
Stephen Wright, Snell & Wilmer
Ms. Owen may be contacted at jowen@swlaw.com
Mr. Hawkins may be contacted at bhawkins@swlaw.com
Mr. Wright may be contacted at swright@swlaw.com
Read the full story...
Your AEC Firm Has a Memory Problem. Here Is How to Fix It
June 01, 2026 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessAEC companies trying to operationalize AI often find they lack the data foundation on which to build. There may be an abundance of data hidden in documents, but you can’t reliably use it for AI.
The lack of data quality was a key topic discussed at the AI in AEC 2026 conference. During the event, I met many experts working to solve this problem, including
Pavlina Nikolova,
Egnyte‘s EMEA AEC Practice Lead. The chat and her presentation highlighted the challenges and ways to overcome them.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
