BEULAH MISSOURI CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Wisconsin Supreme Court Finds Coverage Under Ensuing Loss Provisions

September 29, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Reversing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the insurer, the Wisconsin Supreme Court determined that genuine issues of material fact existed on whether ensuing losses as defined in the policy were covered. Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Ropicky, 2026 Wisc. LEXIS 302 (Wis. July 7, 2026). The insured suffered damage during a storm on May 11, 2018, when rainwater poured into the home. The insureds gave notice to their insurer, Cincinnati. Upon inspection, Cincinnati determined that water intrusion resulted from multiple construction defects in the home. In the front of the home, water entered through a gap in the stone veneer. The inspector also concluded that the damage from rainwater was not just from the May 11, 2018, storm, but damage had occurred from prior storm events. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Late Notice Bars Insured’s Claim for Wind Damage

June 29, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found that a six-month delay in reporting damage from wind did not comply with the policy’s notice requirements. Touchmark Hotel Group, LLC v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61910 (S.D. N. Y. March 24, 2026). A storm caused damage to Touchstone’s hotel on January 4, 2023. Touchstone’s corporate representative, Rohit Patel, testified that he was not at the property on the day of the storm. In a telephone call the next day, the manager of the property reported to Patel that he observed detached shingles from the roof the hotel in the parking lot. Patel testified that he did not file a claim at that time because Touchmark’s employees did not detect any water leakage in the building and because he did not believe that the cost of the damage from the storm would exceed the policy’s deductible. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. 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...

---

Federal Court Strikes Down New York’s Climate Superfund Act: What It Means for the “Polluter Pays” Movement

September 28, 2026 — Amanda G. Halter, Ashleigh K. Myers & Jillian Marullo - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
A federal judge in the Northern District of New York has struck down New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act, ruling that the “polluter pays” climate law is preempted by federal law and “simply beyond the limits of state law.” The court concluded that the Clean Air Act (CAA) does not authorize New York’s compensation scheme, which calculates liability based on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions attributable to worldwide fossil fuel extraction and refining. It separately held that any cost-recovery demand against a foreign producer would be preempted under the constitutional foreign affairs doctrine, which limits state intrusion into matters committed predominantly to the federal government. The court directed the parties to file a status report by September 14, leaving the form of further relief unresolved. In practical terms, the court has decided that the Act is preempted and cannot be enforced but has not yet determined the precise terms of its final order, including whether to formally enjoin its enforcement. The decision in West Virginia v. James, Case No. 1:25-cv-00168 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2026), issued by Chief U.S. District Judge Brenda K. Sannes, who was appointed by President Obama, marks the first judicial invalidation of a state climate superfund statute and carries significant implications for the climate superfund landscape and the three remaining lawsuits challenging these laws. Reprinted courtesy of Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury, Ashleigh K. Myers, Pillsbury and Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

---

LA Scores Major Victory in a High-Exposure Premises Liability Action

July 06, 2026 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Our firm is proud to announce a decisive defense victory obtained by Partner Daniel Crespo and Associate Lauren Landau for our client in a high-exposure premises liability action arising from a 2022 incident at an active school construction site in Perris, California. On March 10, 2026, the Riverside County Superior Court granted Summary Judgment in full for our client, dismissing all claims brought by Plaintiff, who alleged she tripped and fell over a curb while picking up her daughter from school and sustained ankle and wrist injuries as a result. Through meticulous preparation and the strategic use of construction plans, contractual documents, and onsite surveillance video evidence, our team demonstrated that our client had no ownership, possession, or control over the portion of the existing sidewalk where the incident occurred, with construction plans unambiguously designating the area as pre-existing concrete outside our client’s scope of work, and the Construction Services Agreement expressly reserving control over all existing site improvements to the school district. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

---

Arizona Court Enters $323 Million Judgment Against ZOM Living Following Unanimous Jury Verdict

May 26, 2026 — Gray Development Group
PHOENIX, 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.

---

Integration Can Inoculate in Utah

July 20, 2026 — Mark O. Morris - Snell & Wilmer
The Utah Court of Appeals recently reaffirmed, in the construction context, Utah’s strict approach to enforcing integration clauses to preclude parol evidence and other legal theories that would vary the written terms of a contract. In Reid v. All Surface LC, 2025 UT App 134, decided last September, the court affirmed in all respects the trial court’s grant of summary judgment based on the strength of an integration clause against a homeowner who sued a contractor for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, negligence, and breach of the implied warranty of habitability. More recently, however, the same court rejected those same arguments in Tidwell v. Jensen, 2026 UT App 13 as to tort claims arising from a used car sale. The facts in Reid were sympathetic to the plaintiff. After being told she had a mold issue near a defective basement shower, the plaintiff solicited bids. A remediation contractor advised that while it could address the mold, the shower replacement should be handled by someone else. The plaintiff contacted All Surface LC, a shower replacement contractor. During an interview, the sales representative stated that All Surface could “do full mold remediation, tear everything out, and reframe the shower.” The plaintiff ultimately retained All Surface, expecting it would both resolve the mold issues and replace the shower. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mark O. Morris, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Morris may be contacted at mmorris@swlaw.com

---

Tony Sonnett Secures Highly Favorable Verdict for Client in Admitted Liability Case in Which Plaintiff Sought $34.5M

September 29, 2026 — Lewis Brisbois
Los Angeles Partner Tony Sonnett recently obtained a highly favorable verdict for his property owner client in an admitted liability case in which the plaintiff had asked for $34.5 million, with a jury awarding just $75,000. The plaintiff, who was a tenant at one of the client’s rental properties, was injured in October 2020 as he was attempting to close the heavy metal blinds that were affixed to the 12-foot floor-to-ceiling windows of the property. The blinds and their heavy metal covering detached from the wall and fell on the plaintiff’s head, causing him to suffer a scalp laceration that required stitches. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

---