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
Texas Adopts New Procedural Rules for Summary Judgment Motions: What You Need To Know
July 13, 2026 —
Conor G. Bateman & Marsha Cotton - Snell & WilmerOn March 1, 2026, sweeping amendments to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a took effect, fundamentally changing how Texas courts handle summary judgment motions — from filing and briefing through disposition. Whether representing a plaintiff or defendant, Texas litigants and attorneys must understand these new rules and their impact on case strategy and timelines. These procedural changes carry particular significance for construction litigants.
Background: The Prior Rule
Texas summary judgment practice has long diverged from the federal model. The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure recognize two types of summary judgment motions: (1) the traditional motion for summary judgment, and (2) the “no-evidence” motion for summary judgment. The no-evidence motion — unique to Texas — may be filed only after adequate time for discovery has passed. No bright-line rule governs that determination; it depends on the unique circumstances of each case.
Reprinted courtesy of
Conor G. Bateman, Snell & Wilmer and
Marsha Cotton, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Bateman may be contacted at cbateman@swlaw.com
Ms. Cotton may be contacted at mcotton@swlaw.com
Read the full story...
Daily Journal Publishes Article by Brenda Radmacher on Proposed Overhaul of California Construction Defect Law
June 29, 2026 —
Brenda Radmacher - The Construction SeytDaily Journal (California) featured an article by Construction Law partner
Brenda Radmacher, “A new path for construction defects in California.” The piece, published on June 15, 2026, examines Assembly Bill 1903 and its potential to significantly reshape California’s construction defect framework, particularly for common interest properties.
The article highlights how AB 1903 would overhaul the state’s current right-to-repair system by mandating completion of prelitigation procedures, raising requirements for defect claims, strengthening developers’/builders’ rights to repair, and introducing a voluntary “certified building” program. The legislation aims to rebalance competing interests by reducing litigation-driven costs while preserving protections for homeowners.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brenda Radmacher, Seyfarth Shaw LLPMs. Radmacher may be contacted at
bradmacher@seyfarth.com
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 Supreme Court Clarifies Parties’ Post-Default Conduct Cannot Validate Void Default Orders
August 24, 2026 —
Joseph Kanefield, Ryan P. Hogan & Lilly M. Geiler - Snell & WilmerAfter filing a lawsuit, the first step is always serving process on the opposing party. While that preliminary step sounds basic enough, in McMahan v. Grasshopper, the Arizona Supreme Court recently provided a helpful refresher on the nuances of the service requirement and its importance in litigation for plaintiffs and defendants alike.1
Background
McMahan arose from a hit-and-run where a tractor-trailer collided with safety barricades and injured a construction worker. The construction worker sued the tractor-trailer company, and he attempted to serve the company by leaving a copy of the complaint with the assistant to the company’s statutory agent who forwarded the complaint to the company. The assistant, however, was not authorized to accept service on the company’s behalf. Before the company appeared in the action, the construction worker successfully obtained an entry of default.
Reprinted courtesy of
Joseph Kanefield, Snell & Wilmer,
Ryan P. Hogan, Snell & Wilmer and
Lilly M. Geiler, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Kanefield may be contacted at jkanefield@swlaw.com
Mr. Hogan may be contacted at rhogan@swlaw.com
Ms. Geiler may be contacted at lgeiler@swlaw.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
No Ink, No Problem: When Employees and Agents Can Enforce Arbitration Agreements
August 11, 2026 —
Jordan Heath & Jacob Morrison - ConsensusDocsArbitration is a fundamental component of modern construction contracting. Many in the industry recognize the potential benefits and protections arbitration can provide to the business in the event of a dispute. But an important question many contracts do not address is: who does the arbitration agreement cover? Does it include the business entity only, or the individuals acting on behalf of the entity?
As courts have long recognized, entities can generally only act through their employees, representatives, or agents.[1] This article discusses the circumstances in which an agent may rely on an arbitration provision entered by its employer. This is known as the agency doctrine.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jordan Heath, Associate, Jones Walker LLP and Jacob Morrison, Law Student University of Georgia, Jones Walker LLP
Read the full story...Mr. Heath may be contacted at
jheath@joneswalker.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.
