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...
Voluntary Dismissal of an Indemnity Claim Does Not Make the Subcontractor a “Prevailing Party,” Washington Court of Appeals Holds
September 21, 2026 —
Margarita Kutsin - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCIn
King County v. Walsh Construction Company II, LLC, No. 86503-0-I (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 4, 2025), an unpublished decision from Division I of the Washington Court of Appeals, the Court affirmed the denial of a subcontractor’s request for prevailing-party attorney fees under an indemnity clause after the general contractor voluntarily dismissed its indemnity claims. Because the indemnity claim was no longer live and no determination of fault had occurred, the Court held that the trial court did not err in denying the request. ACS represented Walsh, the general contractor, in securing the denial of the fee request at the trial court that the Court of Appeals affirmed.
A Pass-Through Indemnity Claim That Ended Before Fault Was Decided
The dispute arose out of a public works contract under which King County hired Walsh Construction Company II, LLC (“Walsh”) to construct and install a conveyance pipeline. After the pipeline broke, King County sued Walsh for breach of contract and warranty, expressly identifying both Walsh and its subcontractor, Mears Group Inc., (“Mears”) as responsible. Walsh tendered defense and indemnity to Mears under the subcontract.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Margarita Kutsin, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMs. Kutsin may be contacted at
margarita.kutsin@acslawyers.com
White and Williams LLP Secures $42.4 Million Award for Ventana DBS LLC in Philadelphia Marriott Construction Litigation
July 27, 2026 —
Craig O'Neill, Lindsay Liebman, Kristen Nichols Wright, Zachary Roth & William Taylor - White and WilliamsWhite and Williams LLP's Construction and Surety Practice attorneys secured a significant victory for client Ventana DBS LLC in a complex commercial construction dispute before the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Commerce Division. The trial team, led by Bill Taylor, retired Partner, and Craig O'Neill, Co-Chair of the Construction and Surety Practice Group, with support from Lindsay Liebman, Counsel, Zachary Roth, Partner, Kristen Nichols Wright, Associate, and Sue Ferrante, Legal Secretary, obtained a $42.4 million award on Ventana's claims for unpaid work, delay costs, CASPA penalties and interest, attorneys’ fees and other project-related costs arising from the construction of the Marriott W/Element Hotel Project in Philadelphia.
To achieve this result, the White and Williams team managed an extensive discovery period over the course of four-years of litigation, conducted over sixty depositions, participated in court-ordered mediation and arbitration proceedings, and successfully represented Ventana during a bifurcated trial that spanned over the course of a year.
Reprinted courtesy of
Craig O'Neill, White and Williams,
Lindsay Liebman, White and Williams,
Kristen Nichols Wright, White and Williams,
Zachary Roth, White and Williams and
William Taylor, White and Williams
Mr. O'Neill may be contacted at oneillc@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Liebman may be contacted at liebmanl@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Wright may be contacted at wrightk@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Roth may be contacted at rothz@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at taylorw@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the full story...
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...
Two Important Points Regarding the Miller Act
September 15, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent Miller Act case, U.S. f/u/b/o Boundless Management Outsourcing Group, LLC v. Endurance Assurance Corp, 2026 WL 2241491 (D. Puerto Rico 2026), confirms two important points when it comes to the Miller Act. In this case, a subcontractor pursued a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit more than one year after its work was finished. The subcontractor also asserted a claim against the federal government. The lawsuit was dismissed. Below are two takeaway points to consider if you are dealing with a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit.
First, as it relates the claim against the federal government, the federal district court followed authority that held that the Miller Act does NOT include a waiver of sovereign immunity against the federal government. “[T]he Court does not identify any clear language in the Miller Act expressly waiving the United States or its agencies’ sovereign immunity.” Endurance Assurance Corp., supra at *3.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Wadsworth v. Regional Rail Partners — Verified Statements of Claim Under the Colorado Public Works Act
August 25, 2026 —
Olivia Barden - Colorado Construction Litigation BlogEditor’s Note: Wadsworth Revisited
In August 2024, following the Colorado Court of Appeals’ decision in Ralph L. Wadsworth Construction Company, LLC v. Regional Rail Partners, we published
Colorado Court of Appeals’ Ruling Highlights Dangers of Excessive Public Works Claims.
At the time, the decision warranted a significant warning to contractors and subcontractors performing public work in Colorado. The Court of Appeals concluded that Wadsworth’s verified statement of claim improperly included unliquidated delay damages and that, because the claim was excessive, Wadsworth forfeited its right to recover the amounts included in the claim. We cautioned contractors to carefully scrutinize verified statements of claim and to avoid including unliquidated damages or amounts that were not yet due and payable.
The Colorado Supreme Court has now reversed that decision.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Olivia Barden, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
At the Frontier of Change: How—or Where—to Rebuild as Alaska's Permafrost Disappears
September 28, 2026 —
Pam McFarland - Engineering News-RecordIn some areas of the tiny subsistence coastal village of Kwigillingok along the Bering Sea in western Alaska, pockets of ground feel squishy, almost gelatinous, rather than solid. It’s an odd sensation, as if there is only a thin layer of muddy soil preventing people from falling into the water beneath their feet.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pam McFarland, Engineering News-RecordMs. McFarland may be contacted at
mcfarlandp@enr.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...
