Arizona Court Enters $323 Million Judgment Against ZOM Living Following Unanimous Jury Verdict
May 26, 2026 —
Gray Development GroupPHOENIX, May 19, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- A Maricopa County court has entered a $323 million compensatory damages judgment in favor of Gray Development Group against ZOM Holding Inc., doing business as ZOM Living, following a 12-day trial, a unanimous jury verdict and post-trial proceedings related to a proposed business transaction.
The jury found ZOM liable on claims of breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing stemming from a proposed joint venture tied to a planned pipeline of luxury multifamily and commercial projects in Phoenix and Scottsdale.
The lawsuit centered on a 13-project, $1.4 billion development pipeline originated and planned by Gray Development Group over more than a decade. In 2019, Gray invited Florida-based ZOM to participate in a joint venture involving the completion of five projects, which would have marked ZOM's entry into the Arizona market.
According to court findings presented at trial, the companies entered into a mutual confidentiality and non-circumvention agreement before Gray shared extensive sensitive and proprietary information related to the projects, including planning, market analysis, costs, financial data, local business relationships and operational strategies developed by Gray over decades in Arizona.
Evidence presented during trial showed that over a 10-month period while under contract, ZOM made hundreds of requests for confidential project and market information before circumventing Gray and pursuing the projects independently, ultimately displacing Gray from projects it spent years planning and developing.
ZOM Living, headquartered in Orlando, develops multifamily and senior housing communities across the United States and operates regional offices in Boston, Dallas, Fort Lauderdale, Nashville, Phoenix, and Raleigh. ZOM is owned by Timeless Investments, the Amsterdam-based family office of Dutch businessman Hans van Veggel, which acquired the company in 1997.
About Gray Development Group
Gray Development Group was founded by architect Bruce Gray in 1991. The Phoenix-based company was the top-ranked multifamily developer in Arizona for more than a decade. The company designed and developed more than 15,000 apartment and condominium units throughout metropolitan Phoenix. Two Gray-designed developments — a Tempe midrise and a San Diego high-rise — received National Apartment Community of the Year awards.
HDR Agreed to $12M Settlement With Miami Bridge Design-Build Team
May 12, 2026 —
Richard Korman - Engineering News-RecordHDR last year agreed to pay $12 million to the design-build construction contractor Archer Western-de Moya Group to settle its claims that the engineer had incompletely designed and under-designed Miami's new Signature Bridge when the joint venture committed to a fixed price prior to construction in 2018.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Richard Korman, Engineering News-RecordMr. Korman may be contacted at
kormanr@enr.com
Arbitration in Construction Disputes: Process and Best Practices
July 27, 2026 —
Construction ExecutiveArbitration in construction disputes is a private process where owners, contractors, subcontractors, designers or suppliers present claims to one or more neutral arbitrators instead of taking the dispute through court. The arbitrator reviews evidence, hears testimony and issues a decision that is usually binding.
Construction arbitration is common because project disputes are technical, document-heavy and time-sensitive. Claims may involve schedule delays, disputed change orders, defective work, differing site conditions, payment, termination, indemnity, surety issues or professional liability.
Arbitration can be faster and more specialized than litigation, but speed is not guaranteed. Poor contract language, broad discovery, weak records and unclear damages can make arbitration expensive.
Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the full story...
Colorado Supreme Court Reverses Course on Public Project Liens: Key Takeaways From Wadsworth v. Regional Rail Partners
July 27, 2026 —
Amanda E. McKinlay - Snell & WilmerOn April 6, 2026, the Colorado Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Ralph L. Wadsworth Construction Company, LLC v. Regional Rail Partners, 2026 CO 19, reversing the Colorado Court of Appeals and providing much-needed clarity regarding verified statements of claim (VSOCs) under the Colorado Public Works Act, C.R.S. §§ 38-26-101 et seq. The decision resolves two issues that have generated significant concern among construction industry professionals since the Court of Appeals issued its opinion on August 1, 2024.
Under C.R.S. § 38-26-107(1), a subcontractor on a public works project may file a VSOC with the contracting public entity for amounts due and unpaid for “…furnished labor, materials, sustenance, or other supplies used or consumed by a contractor or his or her subcontractor in or about the performance of the work contracted to be done or that supplies laborers, rental machinery, tools, or equipment to the extent used in the prosecution of the work….” If a claimant files a VSOC for “an amount greater than the amount due” without a reasonable possibility that the amount is due and with knowledge that the claim is excessive, the claimant “shall forfeit all rights to the amount claimed” and becomes liable for the opposing party’s costs and attorneys’ fees. C.R.S. § 38-26-110.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Amanda E. McKinlay, Snell & WilmerMs. McKinlay may be contacted at
amckinlay@swlaw.com
Contractor Dispute Resolution Framework and Prevention
July 06, 2026 —
Construction ExecutiveWHAT DEFINES A CONTRACTOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION FRAMEWORK
A contractor dispute resolution framework is a structured system of contractual terms, governance processes and escalation pathways designed to prevent, manage and resolve conflicts between contracting parties with minimal disruption to cost, schedule and performance.
The framework operates as both a preventive control and a corrective mechanism. Preventive elements establish clarity in scope, expectations and accountability before work begins. Corrective elements define how disagreements are identified, documented, escalated and resolved once they arise.
Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the full story...
Achieving Sustainability Through Design-Build Delivery: Part I – An Overview
September 21, 2026 —
Joshua M. Pruett, Jennifer L. Harris & Tiffany A. Harrod - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.This article was written for the AGC’s Law in Brief and first appeared here.
Sustainability is no longer optional. What was once a matter of public policy or corporate preference has become a regulatory mandate and is reshaping how construction projects are designed, built, and operated. This mandate is not solely figurative. Rather, states have started to follow Europe’s lead by beginning to codify sustainability requirements into regulations and law. California led the charge by adding mandatory embodied-carbon emissions regulations into CALGreen, and other states, such as New York, have introduced bills to implement similar requirements. Owners, designers, and builders must now treat sustainability not as aspirational, but as a clearly defined contract issue from the outset, particularly where the project is expected to achieve a third-party rating, meet energy or resiliency targets, qualify for incentives, or comply with evolving green building codes.
In the federal public sector, construction contracts include a layered compliance framework—executive order-inspired policy, FAR-mandated clauses, and enduring statutory requirements—requiring contractors to integrate sustainability into design, material selection, and lifecycle management. Staying ahead means aligning with regulatory standards, conducting life-cycle cost analyses, and embedding sustainability into every procurement and construction decision.
Reprinted courtesy of
Joshua M. Pruett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.,
Jennifer L. Harris, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Tiffany A. Harrod, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Pruett may be contacted at jpruett@pecklaw.com
Ms. Harris may be contacted at jharris@pecklaw.com
Ms. Harrod may be contacted at tharrod@pecklaw.com
Read the full story...
Congratulations to BWB&O’s Orange County Team for Securing a Strong MSJ Result in a Residential Gas Explosion Matter!
May 14, 2026 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPHuge Congratulations to Partner
Kevin Wheeler and Associate
Lindsey Wells for securing a strong result on a Motion for Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication filed on behalf of their client, the City of Murrieta. This was a complex, multi-party matter arising from a residential gas leak and explosion, where Plaintiffs alleged the City and MFPD failed to properly respond to the incident. After multiple complaints were consolidated and extensive defense work narrowed the case, eighteen plaintiffs remained asserting five causes of action against the City, prompting a comprehensive MSJ/MSA targeting liability, causation, and damages.
The Court’s ruling reflects a significant win, particularly on the immunity framework. The Court eliminated the core negligence and assumed-duty claims arising from fire protection and emergency response activities. It further disposed of the misrepresentation and public nuisance claims. At the end of the day, three plaintiffs were dismissed entirely for failure to comply with Government Claims Act requirements, further reducing the scope of the case. While the dangerous condition claim remains, it does so in a very limited posture.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Supply Chain Is a Legal Exposure—Not Just a Force Majeure Problem
September 08, 2026 —
Owen Newman - Construction ExecutiveThis is not another force majeure article. The supply-chain related legal exposure that contractors are carrying today—in sanctions risk, specification non-compliance, warranty exposure and regulatory volatility—extends well beyond what even a well-drafted force majeure clause protects.
An engineering, procurement and construction contractor on a gas-fired power plant discovers during commissioning that transformer oil in a critical unit contains Russian-origin naphthenic base oil, which is a prohibited source under Office of Foreign Assets Control sanctions. The contractor didn’t source it. A subsupplier two tiers below made the substitution when disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz tightened the primary supply chain for this specialty product and no one in the purchase-order chain flagged it. The procurement decision is long done and the documentation trail that should have caught it doesn’t exist.
Reprinted courtesy of
Owen Newman, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the full story...Mr. Newman may be contacted at
oknewman@duanemorris.com
