Snell & Wilmer’s Orange County Office Recognized as One of the “Best Places to Work” by the Orange County Business Journal
August 16, 2026 —
Snell & WilmerORANGE COUNTY – Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that its Orange County office has been selected as one of the 2026 “Best Places to Work in Orange County” by the Orange County Business Journal. This recognition honors outstanding employers that foster exceptional workplace cultures and demonstrate a strong commitment to employee engagement, professional development, and organizational excellence.
The annual awards recognize Orange County employers that create positive workplace environments and set the standard for employee satisfaction and organizational success. Honorees are selected through a comprehensive evaluation process that includes confidential employee surveys and an independent assessment of company policies, practices, philosophy, systems, and demographics.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Snell & Wilmer
Lewis Brisbois Welcomes Clients and Community Leaders to New Garden City Office Opening
July 27, 2026 —
Lewis BrisboisOn July 15, Lewis Brisbois hosted a ribbon-cutting event for its new Garden City office, which opened in April to serve the Long Island community and beyond.
The event was attended by more than 100 people, including Lewis Brisbois attorneys and staff as well as clients, local business and government leaders, Nassau County Supreme Court judges, and members of the press. Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman delivered remarks and cut the ribbon for the office.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
What Massachusetts Contractors and Developers Can Learn from Cannistraro v. Columbia Construction
July 13, 2026 —
Anthony LaPlaca & Luke Marston - The Construction SeytIntroduction
On June 26, 2026 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its decision in J.C. Cannistraro, LLC v. Columbia Construction Co.—a holding that sits at the intersection of Prompt Pay Act compliance and the Massachusetts Arbitration Act.
[1]
Most already know that the Massachusetts Prompt Pay Act (PPA) imposes strict timing and certification requirements for rejecting payment applications and proposed change orders on projects valued at $3 million or more. Most notably, the PPA requires the paying party to give the payee written notice of its approval or rejection of progress applications and proposed changes within 15 days of receipt, which notice must include a “factual and contractual basis for the rejection” and must be “certified as made in good faith.”
[2] In the absence of a timely certified notice, payment is “deemed to be approved” unless the payor properly rejects payment before it comes due.
[3]
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony LaPlaca, Seyfarth Shaw LLP and
Luke Marston, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Mr. LaPlaca may be contacted at alaplaca@seyfarth.com
Mr. Marston may be contacted at lmarston@seyfarth.com
Read the full story...
Building in Arizona’s Data Center Boom: How Federal Executive Orders, State Regulation, and National-Security Policy Are Reshaping the Rules for Developers
June 02, 2026 —
Ryan J. Regula - Snell & WilmerDevelopers and practitioners evaluating data center projects in Arizona face a regulatory environment shifting on three fronts simultaneously. Federal executive orders are opening new land, streamlining permitting, and channeling financial incentives toward qualifying projects — but they are not preempting the state and local rules that most directly affect project economics. A carve-out in the December 2025 Artificial Intelligence (AI) Framework Executive Order preserves Arizona’s authority over data center infrastructure, meaning the Arizona Corporation Commission’s (ACC) rate-classification docket, municipal zoning restrictions, water-use ordinances, and pending grid cost-allocation legislation remain the binding constraints on project feasibility. Understanding where federal tailwinds end and state and local headwinds begin is essential for any developer sizing risk or selecting sites in the state.
The Federal Landscape: An Interlocking Framework of Executive Orders
Five interlocking executive orders are accelerating data center development nationally, but none overrides Arizona’s authority over siting energy, or infrastructure.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ryan J. Regula, Snell & WilmerMr. Regula may be contacted at
rregula@swlaw.com
Powering Data Centers in a Moving Regulatory Landscape: Positioning Deals Before FERC’s Next Move
April 27, 2026 —
Stephen J. Humes, Alicia M. McKnight & Andrew H. Jacobs - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogThe explosive growth of data‑center load—driven by artificial intelligence, cloud computing and the expansion of digital infrastructure across industries—has forced U.S. energy regulators into unfamiliar territory. Nowhere is this more evident than at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which is actively considering how large, concentrated loads can be powered without compromising grid reliability or shifting costs to other customers.
FERC has not yet issued a standalone rulemaking on data centers. But make no mistake, the regulatory framework is quietly and deliberately being built. For developers, hyperscalers, utilities and investors, the period before FERC finalizes its next round of decisions represents the critical window to crystallize advocacy and structure transactions in ways that anticipate regulatory change.
Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen J. Humes, Pillsbury,
Alicia M. McKnight, Pillsbury and
Andrew H. Jacobs, Pillsbury
Mr. Humes may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. McKnight may be contacted at alicia.mcknight@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Jacobs may be contacted at andrew.jacobs@pillsburylaw.com
Read the full story...
Vacant Building Negates Coverage for Broken Pipe
September 01, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Michigan Court of Appeals found the insured was not covered for water damage because the commercial space was left vacant. Cherry Hill Recreation Center, Inc. v. Conifer Ins Co., 2026 Mich, App. LEXIS 5099 (Mich Ct. App. June 18, 2026).
Alan Abbas purchased a bowling alley. Due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and executive orders issued by the governor, Abbas was unable to operate the bowling center for several months. During the winter, Abbas allowed the thermostat to drop significantly, with the building expected to be around 43 degrees Fahrenheit. He later admitted the sprinkler system’s pipes were not protected against freezing.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
IRMI Expert Commentary: NY Highest Court Confronts Downstream Risk Transfer for Subcontractor Bodily Injury Claims
March 17, 2026 —
Gregory D. Podolak & Alexander G. Hopkins - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Originally published on IRMI.com, copyright 2026 International Risk Management Institute, Inc.
Subcontractor employee bodily injury claims (so-called action over claims) are a staple of construction risk management in the Empire State—so much so that the phrase “labor law” instinctively invites a shudder among the most experienced general contractors. The savvy among them intensely monitor case law developments and the evolution of the insurance market to ensure a cutting-edge, meticulously developed downstream risk transfer plan. And when guidance arrives from an appellate-level court, it’s a moment to take note.
This is one of those moments.
In late 2025, New York’s highest court—the NY Court of Appeals—had the rare opportunity to examine an all-too-routine bodily injury fact pattern and took the opportunity to closely examine the scope of contractual indemnity and its interplay with additional insured coverage in Dibrino v. Rockefeller Center N., Inc., 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 07077, 2025 WL 3670593 (Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2025).
Reprinted courtesy of
Gregory D. Podolak, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Alexander G. Hopkins, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Podolak may be contacted at GPodolak@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Hopkins may be contacted at AHopkins@sdvlaw.com
Read the full story...
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
We Knew Concrete Could Absorb Carbon—New Study Tells How MuchNo Prejudicial Error in Refusing to Give Jury Instruction on Predominant CauseState Farm Unsuccessful In Seeking Dismissal of Qui Tam CaseIndicted Union Representatives Try Again to Revive EnmonsOC Streetcar Project Mediation Sets $50M Payment to WalshTrio of White and Williams Attorneys Named Top Lawyers by Delaware TodaySmall Airport to Grow with TowerProtect Workers From Falls: A Leading Cause of DeathThank You to Virginia Super LawyersMeet the Forum's In-House Counsel: ERIN CANNON-WELLSWisconsin Supreme Court Holds Fire Damage Resulted from Single OccurrenceSometimes it Depends on “Whose” Hand is in the Cookie JarWhen Logic Doesn’t Matter: Why ‘Irrational’ Isn’t a Ground to Overturn an Arbitration Award in TennesseeInvestigation Continues on Children Drowning at Construction SiteNew York Court Holds Insurer Can Rely on Exclusions After Incorrectly Denying DefenseThe Vallagio HOA Appeals the Decision from the Colorado Court of Appeals Stephen Henning Receives “Legend of an Era” AwardThe Business of Engineering: An Interview with Matthew LoosArizona Purchaser Dwelling Actions Are Subject to a New ConstructionNew Strategy for Deterring Intracorporate Litigation?: Delaware Supreme Court Supports Fee-Shifting BylawsNew York Considers Amendments to Construction Industry Wage Laws that Would Impose Significant Burden Upon ContractorsClaims Against Broker DismissedWhat Sustainable Building Materials Will the Construction Industry Rely on in 2020?Evacuations in Santa Barbara County as more Mudslides are PredictedDeck Police - The New Mandate for HOA's Takes Safety to the Next LevelWoman Files Suit for Property DamagesThe Comcast Project is Not Likely to Be Shut Down Too LongThe Devil is in the Details: The Texas Construction Trust Fund Pitfalls Residential Remodelers (and General Contractors) Should AvoidNot Remotely Law as Usual: Don’t Settle for Delays – Settle at Remote MediationGoogle’s Biggest Moonshot Is Its Search for a Carbon-Free Future16 Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine 2021 Top Lawyers!Court Conditionally Grants Mandamus Relief to Compel AppraisalAre We Headed for a Work Shortage?Federal Magistrate Judge Recommends Rescission of PoliciesBalancing Cybersecurity Threats in Smart Cities: Is the Potential Convenience of “Smart” Intersections Worth the Risk?New Jersey Supreme Court Holding Impacts Allocation of Damages in Cases Involving Successive TortfeasorsHomeowners Sue Over Sinkholes, Use Cash for Other ThingsIs the Obsession With Recordable Injury Rates a Deadly Safety Distraction?General Contractor’s Ability to Supplement Subcontractor Per SubcontractWhat is the Effect of an Untimely Challenge to the Timeliness of a Trustee’s Sale?Traub Lieberman Attorneys Win Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings In Favor of InsurerPreliminary Notice Is More Important Than Ever During COVID-1925 Years of West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect SeminarRikus Locati Selected to 2024 Northern California Rising Stars!Beyond the Disneyland Resort: MuseumsBeyond Complexity: Systems Engineering in ConstructionNew Jersey Court Pumps the Brakes on Product Liability LawsuitMassachusetts Federal Court Rejects Adria Towers, Finds Construction Defects Not an “Occurrence”Settlement Conference May Not Be the End in Construction Defect CaseMechanic’s Liens and Leases Don’t Often Mix WellNew Jersey Judge Found Mortgage Lender Liable When Borrower Couldn’t PayTravelers Injury Impact Report Highlights Longer Recovery Times Amid Declining Injury RatesMeet Orange County Bar Associations 2024 LeadersRoni Most, Esq., Reappointed as a City of Houston Associate Judge 
