Ninth Circuit Affirms District Court’s Finding of No Coverage for Interior Leak
March 24, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiApplying California law, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that water damage caused by a leaking pipe over time was not covered under the insured’s homeowners’ policy. Mojica v. State Farm General Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 32405 (9th Cir. Dec. 11, 2025).
A small hole, slightly larger than a pen tip in size, developed in a pressurized hot water pipe. The resulting leak lasted for nearly six days and released enough water to saturate and ruin all the subflooring and flooring in the insureds’ home.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Shane Singh Named One of Los Angeles Business Journal's 'Top 100 Lawyers of Los Angeles' for 2026
April 27, 2026 —
Lewis BrisboisSacramento Partner Shane Singh has been named one of the Los Angeles Business Journal's "Top 100 Lawyers of Los Angeles" for 2026.
The LABJ’s annual list honors Los Angeles' top lawyers for their achievements within the city's business community.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
It’s More Than a Feeling: Proving Construction Damages and When You Should Hire an Expert to Help Do It
July 27, 2026 —
Bradley E. Sands & Katie McCracken - ConsensusDocsWhen you win a bid, you might be singing that everything is going your way. Then something goes wrong. The owner hands you defective plans, sits on RFI responses or other critical information, or otherwise upends the work. The costs pile up through no fault of your own. You feel wronged, and you want to be made whole. But a feeling that you got burned is not enough. To recover, that feeling has to become something the law recognizes as damages. So, what are damages, and how do you prove them?
At bottom, contract damages are the money that puts the non-breaching party (i.e., the party that doesn’t breach the contract) in the position it would have occupied had the contract been performed.
Reprinted courtesy of
Bradley E. Sands, Jones Walker LLP and Katie McCracken, Summer Associate, University of Georgia School of Law
Read the full story...Mr. Sands may be contacted at
bsands@joneswalker.com
Research Illuminates Pollution Problem in Tijuana River Valley
June 29, 2026 —
Jeff Yoders - Engineering News-RecordThe Tijuana River watershed between southern California and northern Mexico has been the epicenter of an environmental and public health crisis for more than two decades. Since October 2023 alone, more than 31 billion gallons of raw sewage and polluted water have flowed into the U.S. and, eventually, the Pacific Ocean.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeff Yoders, Engineering News-RecordMr. Yoders may be contacted at
yodersj@enr.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
Lost in Translation: AEC Tech’s Missing Role
May 12, 2026 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessI once visited a construction site where the contractor’s headquarters had commissioned a tech company to build an on-site quality-inspection application. The developer had admitted to the site engineer that they had never set foot on a construction site before. The engineer showed me what he was actually using: his own phone camera and an Excel sheet. The new app did not map to how work actually happened on site.
This is not an isolated story. The vendor builds something technically coherent but operationally disconnected. The client, somewhere up the chain, had fallen in love with the idea of the solution before anyone had built an honest business case for it.
The result is a tool that gets demonstrated at a board meeting but isn’t used in the field.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
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
Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith Practice Earns Prestigious Band One Ranking in the Chambers USA 2026 Guide
June 22, 2026 —
White and Williams LLPWhite and Williams LLP's Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith Practice Group is pleased to share that it has received a Band One ranking in the Chambers USA 2026 Guide for Insurance, Pennsylvania. Additionally, Patricia B. Santelle, Chair Emeritus, Randy Maniloff, Partner, and Robert Walsh, Partner have all been individually ranked on the Chambers USA 2026 Guide in Insurance in Pennsylvania.
The Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith Practice's consistent focus on their clients and handling of complex claims were just two of the attributes contributing to their elite Band One ranking, after 11 years on the Chambers USA list. When asked about their experience working with White and Williams’ Pennsylvania Insurance Practice, one client stated, “What distinguishes White and Williams is the high level of service and accountability. The team is responsive, organized and reliable, which allows our internal teams to move quickly and make informed decisions with confidence.”
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLPLegislative Update – The CSLB’s Study Under SB465Federal Magistrate Judge Recommends Rescission of PoliciesHawaii Supreme Court Finds Climate Change Lawsuit Barred by “Pollution Exclusion”The Privacy Shield Is Gone: How Do I Now Move Data from the EU to the USMassachusetts High Court: Attorney's Fee Award Under Consumer Protection Act Not Covered by General Liability Insurance PolicyDefense Owed to Insured Subcontractor, but not to Additional InsuredBest U.S. Home Sales Since 2007 Show Momentum in Housing MarketAs of July 1, 2024, California Will Require Most Employers to Have a Written Workplace Violence Prevention Program (WVPP) and Training. Is Your Company Compliant?Search in Florida Collapse to Take Weeks; Deaths Reach 90Privette: The “Affirmative Contribution” Exception, How Far Does It Go?Case Alert Update: SDV Case Tabbed as One of New York’s Top Three Cases to WatchLondon’s Best Districts Draw Buyers on Italian Triple DipCalifornia Court of Appeal Finds Alleged Inadequate Defense by Insurer-Appointed Defense Counsel Does Not Trigger a Right to Independent CounselAllegations That COVID-19 Was Physically Present and Altered Property are Sufficient to Sustain COVID-19 Business Interruption SuitCalifornia Court Forces Insurer to Play Ball in COVID-19 Insurance Coverage SuitKnow your Obligations: Colorado’s Statutory Expansions of the Implied Warranty of Habitability Are Now in EffectAddressing Safety on the Construction SiteHOA Foreclosure Excess Sale Proceeds Go to OwnerSurvey Finds Tough Labor Market Top-of-mind for Busy Georgia ContractorsAuburn Woods Homeowners Association v. State Farm General Insurance CompanySochi Construction Unlikely to be Completed by End of Olympic GamesArchitect Blamed for Crumbling Public School PlaygroundTimely Written Notice to Insurer and Cooperating with InsurerBuilding Down in November, Even While Home Sales RiseElevators Take Sustainable Smart Cities to the Next LevelGeneral Partner Is Not Additional Insured For Construction Defect ClaimThe Brexit Effect on the Construction IndustryUS-Mexico Border Wall Bids Include Tourist Attraction, Solar PanelsFrench President Vows to Rebuild Fire-Collapsed Notre Dame Roof and Iconic SpireGet Construction Defects in Writing Rihanna Gained an Edge in Construction Defect CaseAlabama Court Upholds Late Notice DisclaimerDistressed Home Sales ShrinkingReal Estate & Construction News Round-Up (11/30/22) – Proptech Trends, Green Construction, and Sustainable BuildingsCalifornia Homeowners Can Release Future, Unknown Claims Against BuildersNinth Circuit: Speculative Injuries Do Not Confer Article III StandingEntire Fairness or Business Judgment? It’s Anyone’s GuessU.S. Codes for Deck AttachmentNY Project Produces America's First Utility Scale Wind PowerIs the Issuance of a City Use Permit Referable? Not When It Is an Administrative ActFour Key Steps for a Successful Construction Audit ProcessThe Seventh Circuit Rejects Navigators Insurance Company’s Attempt to Escape Additional Insured Coverage For a Gas ExplosionArbitration is Waivable (Even If You Don’t Mean To)Part of the Whole: Idaho District Court Holds Economic Loss Rule Bars Tort Claims Related to Water Supply Line that was Part of Home PurchaseCity Wonders Who’s to Blame for Defective WallTraub Lieberman Partner Gregory S. Pennington and Associate Emily A. Velcamp Obtain Summary Judgment in Favor of Residential Property OwnersNew York Appellate Team Obtains Affirmance of Dismissal of Would-Be Labor Law Action Against Municipal EntitiesReal Estate & Construction News Roundup (11/12/25) – Banks Weather CRE Storm, Industrial Outdoor Storage Markets Soar, and Office Vacancy DeclineSEC Recommendations to Protect Against Cybersecurity ThreatsConstruction Defect Claim Did Not Harm Homeowner, Court Rules 
