Louisiana Enacts Important Tort Reform Legislation
May 12, 2026 —
Lee M. Peacocke & Benjamin Perkins - Lewis BrisboisThe Louisiana legislature enacted tort reform legislation in 2025 to address the increasing cost of insurance in Louisiana and to provide some predictability to the Louisiana legal system. While our colleagues, Jenny Michel and Jennifer Kretschmann, have provided an excellent and comprehensive analysis of the legislation in their article entitled “Louisiana State Legislature 2025 Regular Session: Tort Reform - Acts & Vetoed Insurance Bill,” which can be found
here, this article examines the anticipated impact of the tort reform legislation on personal injury trials in federal and state courts in Louisiana.
The most significant reform involves the institution of a modified defense of contributory negligence, which went into effect on January 1, 2026. Since 1996, Louisiana had operated as a pure comparative fault state; the liability of each party whose fault caused damages was to be allocated among the respective parties based upon their appropriate percentage of fault, regardless of the legal theory of liability asserted against each party. Thus, a plaintiff 55 percent at fault could recover 45 percent of their damages from the liable defendants. The 2025 Tort Reform Amendments now prohibit a plaintiff in a personal injury action from recovering any damages if they are found to be 51 percent or more at fault for their damages. The 55 percent at-fault party in the example above is now prohibited from recovering any damages from any party. Importantly, this new legislation now requires the trial court to instruct the jury that if they find a plaintiff to be more than 50 percent at fault, then the plaintiff will not recover any damages.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lee M. Peacocke, Lewis Brisbois and
Benjamin Perkins, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Peacocke may be contacted at Lee.Peacocke@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Perkins may be contacted at Benjamin.Perkins@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the full story...
New York Orders Moratorium on Large Data Center Permits
July 27, 2026 —
Levi W. Barrett - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Levi W. Barrett, Co-Managing Partner of Peckar & Abramson’s New Jersey office, Co-Chair of the firm’s
Construction Contracts & Risk Management team, and Executive Committee Member, was recently quoted in “New York Orders Moratorium on Large Data Center Permits,” an article written by
Engineering News-Record (ENR). The article examines New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s executive order temporarily halting state environmental permit reviews for certain large-scale data center projects while regulators develop a comprehensive framework to address the sector’s energy demands, water consumption, environmental impacts, and effects on local communities. It also explores the broader implications of the moratorium for developers, contractors, investors, and other stakeholders, as well as the ongoing debate between economic development, AI-driven infrastructure growth, and environmental and utility ratepayer concerns.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Levi W. Barrett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Mr. Barrett may be contacted at
lbarrett@pecklaw.com
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
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...
Connecticut Expands Construction Wage-Theft Liability and Prevailing Wage Recordkeeping Requirements
June 29, 2026 —
Anand Gupta & Guest Contributor - Construction Law ZoneThis post was co-authored by Labor + Employment group lawyer Christopher Costain, Hayden Eckblom (Summer Intern), and Pasqualina Fox-Mina (Summer Associate). Hayden and Pasqualina are not admitted to practice law.
On May 11, 2026, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed into law Public Act 26-12, a wide-ranging bill centered around employee rights. Our colleagues in Robinson+Cole’s Labor, Employment, Benefits + Immigration group recently published a
legal update summarizing the key components of Public Act 26-12. Here, we focus on the Wage Theft and Prevailing Wage concepts in the bill that directly relate to the construction industry.
Wage Theft
With exceptions for public works and small residential projects, general contractors will be jointly and severally liable for any unpaid wages owed to an employee of a subcontractor of any tier on private construction projects, beginning with contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2027. As we know, there is a separate regime for public works projects involving payment bonds.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anand Gupta, Robinson & Cole LLPMr. Gupta may be contacted at
agupta@rc.com
Risks of Using an AI Chatbot for Legal Advice: Lessons from United States v. Heppner
April 08, 2026 —
Payne & Fears LLPImagine that you are an executive (who is not a lawyer) and are concerned about what your company plans to do is legal. You could call your lawyer who might bill you for the call. Or, you can ask your AI chatbot, such as Claude or ChatGPT, about the legal risk. The chatbot will likely compliment you on the incisive question, provide you with highly confident answer (that may or may not be right) and will not bill you on an hourly basis.
That is essentially what financial services executive Bradley Heppner did. It did not end well. A federal court recently ruled that Heppner’s chats with the AI tool Claude were not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. That means that the other side (in this case, the federal government) could get access to his chatbot prompts, uploads and responses, and learn a great deal about, for example, whether Heppner knew what he was doing was illegal.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Payne & Fears LLP
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.
The GKN Aerospace Chemical Release and the Laws Designed to Address It
July 06, 2026 —
Sean M. Sherlock - Snell & WilmerOn May 21, 2026, a 34,000-gallon storage tank at the GKN Aerospace facility in Garden Grove, California began leaking methyl methacrylate (MMA), a volatile and highly flammable industrial chemical used to manufacture high-strength acrylic plastics. GKN Aerospace makes advanced military and commercial transparencies, such as aircraft canopies, windshields, cabin windows, bullet-resistant glass, and spacecraft windows.
In polymer chemistry lingo, MMA is known as a monomer. Monomers are like individual links to a chain. Under the right conditions they link up (react) with each other to form long-chained polymers, or plastics. MMA is an unstable monomer that requires controlled storage conditions to avoid setting off a polymerization (chain) reaction.
According to early reports, the MMA tank at GKN Aerospace overheated. The cause of the overheating is not yet clear, but the overheating may have created conditions enabling the MMA to initiate polymerization, which in turn generated heat, which in turn generated pressure, activating the tank’s pressure-relief system and releasing MMA vapor into the atmosphere. Concerns about a runaway reaction, massive release, and explosion led the Orange County Fire Authority to order evacuation of approximately 40,000 residents and closure of thirteen schools.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sean M. Sherlock, Snell & WilmerMr. Sherlock may be contacted at
ssherlock@swlaw.com
