Case Updates

A contractor's liability insurance can be central to a project owner's decision to award a construction contract. Yet even an innocent owner's reliance on that coverage may not preserve it when the contractor materially misrepresented its operations in the insurance application. In Scottsdale Insurance Company v. California Military Department, Case No. G065564, California's Fourth District Court of Appeal, affirmed a judgment allowing Scottsdale to rescind liability policies issued to a contractor whose work caused a fire at a military base. The published decision, filed October 14, 2026, addresses both the scope of an insurer's waiver of rescission rights and the consequences of rescission for a party seeking coverage as an additional insured.

A public entity that defeats an untenable lawsuit at the pleading stage may still incur substantial legal expenses securing that dismissal. Beginning January 1, 2027, California Senate Bill 577 expands the circumstances under which those expenses may be recovered. The legislation adds qualifying demurrers and motions for judgment on the pleadings to the dispositions that can support an award under Code of Civil Procedure § 1038, bringing the statute's defense-cost remedy into an earlier phase of litigation.

Every technological innovation that meaningfully changes the practice of law ultimately changes the economics of litigation. Electronic discovery transformed document production. Email reshaped the scope of discoverable evidence. Digital case management accelerated communication between lawyers, clients, and courts. Each innovation delivered increased efficiency. Yet, history has shown this rarely reduces litigation. More often, it lowers the cost of pursuing claims, expands access to the legal system, and changes the strategic balance between those bringing lawsuits and those defending them. Generative artificial intelligence may prove to be the most consequential development yet

A convincing legal argument can unravel when the authority supporting it does not exist. Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has made that risk more immediate, producing citations, quotations, and factual assertions that can appear reliable until someone checks the underlying source. California's newly enacted Senate Bill 574 addresses that problem while imposing broader duties concerning confidentiality, disclosure, and professional responsibility.

An insured cannot wait for expert discovery to establish the precise cause and extent of a construction loss before notifying its excess carrier of a potentially covered claim. In HITT Contracting, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Record No. 0275-25-4 (Va. Ct. App. Aug. 4, 2026), the Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed a judgment barring recovery under a second-layer excess policy because the insured waited too long to notify its carrier.

A settlement demand containing two different dollar amounts can end a claim against an Arizona public entity before the parties ever litigate liability. In Terborg v. Town of Payson, No. CV-25-0317-PR, 2026 WL 2871550 (Ariz. Sept. 24, 2026), the Arizona Supreme Court held that a notice offering to settle for "one hundred thousand dollars ($250,000)" failed to satisfy A.R.S. section 12-821.01(A). Neither ordinary drafting conventions nor admittedly clerical nature of the mistake saved the claim.

A data center can be finished as a building and still be months away from doing the work its owner purchased it to perform. Permanent power may be unavailable. A generator may fail an integrated test. A change in computing equipment may require a different cooling design. Each problem can delay the date on which the owner can deliver capacity to a customer, even if much of the physical construction is complete. The gap between building completion and operational readiness is where many legal disputes arise.

When Florida lawmakers enacted sweeping tort reform legislation in 2022 and 2023, the stated objectives were to reduce excessive litigation, stabilize the insurance market, discourage abusive legal practices, and restore greater predictability to civil litigation. The legislation sparked vigorous debate. Supporters argued that Florida's litigation climate had become an outlier that drove insurance costs and discouraged insurers from operating in the state. Critics countered that the reforms would limit access to the courts and shifted the balance too far in favor of defendants and insurers.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman obtained summary judgment for three defendants in a lawsuit arising from an alleged assault by a security guard at a property in Torrance, California. Orange County associate Courtney Sherman obtained favorable rulings on all three defense motions, defeating efforts to hold the defendants responsible for the guard's alleged conduct.

California's work product doctrine reflects a deliberate legislative policy choice. Rather than protecting documents simply because they were created during litigation, the doctrine protects the attorney's process of preparing a case. The Legislature codified that policy in Code of Civil Procedure section 2018.020, which explains that attorneys should be able to prepare their cases "with that degree of privacy necessary to encourage them to prepare their cases thoroughly and to investigate not only the favorable but unfavorable aspects of those cases." The statute also recognizes that attorneys should not be permitted to take "undue advantage of their adversaries' industry and efforts."

On August 18, 2026, the Washington Office of the Insurance Commissioner adopted amendments to fifteen sections of the state's Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Regulation, WAC 284-30-300 through -395. The amended rules take effect October 18, 2026.

Payment of an underinsured motorist arbitration award resolves the amount owed under the policy. Whether it also resolves liability arising from the insurer's earlier handling of the claim presents a different question. In Labeaume v. First National Insurance Company of America, 37 Wn. App. 2d 445 (2026), Division II of Washington's Court of Appeals held that full payment does not necessarily foreclose an Insurance Fair Conduct Act claim for damages caused by an allegedly unreasonable denial of benefits. The decision is not final; First National has petitioned the Washington Supreme Court for review, and the petition remains pending as of the date of this publication.

A property owner's exposure to a contractor's workplace injury may turn on the contractual arrangements that brought the contractor onto the property, even when the owner did not hire the contractor directly. In Schurman Family Company TIC v. Superior Court, No. A174194, the First District Court of Appeal held that a commercial landlord fell within the chain of delegation protected by the Privette doctrine after its tenant hired an independent contractor to perform work contemplated by the lease.

In Urban Sunrise LLC v. Vogt (Cal.App. Third Dist., Case No. 103199), the Court of Appeal affirmed judgment for a broker and agent who represented both sides of five commercial property transactions. The buyer could not obtain financing because of difficulties securing fire insurance. This resulted in a cancellation of the purchases and forfeiture of more than $1.1 million in funds released to the sellers. It then sought to recover its losses from the dual agents. The court's analysis focused on the duties the agents owed under California law and the parties' agreements, measured against what the buyer knew before it committed to the transactions. It found no triable issue of fact on the alleged fiduciary breaches pursued on appeal. The court also affirmed a $492,800 commission award in favor of the broker.

A patient who continues to experience symptoms after surgery does not necessarily have immediate notice that the procedure was performed negligently. That distinction proved decisive in Godshall v. Peterson Case No. D086572, in which the California Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment in favor of a surgeon and his medical group, finding unresolved factual questions concerning when the patient suffered an appreciable injury that was sufficient to trigger the statute of limitations..

For decades, Tennessee occupied a relatively predictable place in the national litigation landscape. Cases generally developed deliberately rather than theatrically. Discovery proceeded at a measured pace. Trial remained comparatively uncommon outside a handful of venues. Medical treatment typically occurred through traditional healthcare channels, with bills paid through commercial insurance, Medicare, TennCare, or employer-sponsored plans.

Robert Frost famously observed that "good fences make good neighbors." Yet in modern residential litigation, the fence itself is often the least of the neighbors' problems. More often, it is the tree growing beside it. Towering oaks, mature maples, pines, and other established trees are part of the character of residential properties throughout Tennessee. They provide shade, privacy, and may increase property value. They also send branches across property lines and roots beneath sewer lines. During severe weather, they can send limbs onto neighboring homes and other property.

Alcohol-related incidents can expose restaurants, bars, hotels, entertainment venues, retailers, and their insurers to claims involving catastrophic injury, wrongful death, assault, and substantial property damage. In Alabama, however, evidence that a business served alcohol to someone who later caused an injury does not, standing alone, establish liability.

In Gorobets v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (Aug. 6, 2026, S287946), the California Supreme Court resolved an important question concerning statutory offers to compromise under Code of Civil Procedure section 998. May a single offer give the receiving party a choice between two different sets of settlement terms? The Court held that section 998 does not categorically prohibit such an offer. An "alternative choice-offer" may trigger section 998's cost-shifting provisions if it clearly identifies the available alternatives and at least one alternative is sufficiently certain to permit an accurate valuation when the offer is made.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman's Cybersecurity and Data Privacy Team continues to build momentum, recently securing dismissals of data breach class actions in multiple jurisdictions across the country. The latest results, including dismissals in Louisiana federal court, California state court, and Georgia federal court, reflect the team's strategic focus on early investigation and identifying threshold deficiencies that can resolve claims before costly litigation takes hold.

A recently published decision from the Washington Court of Appeals provides important guidance regarding the limited circumstances under which a construction lien may be summarily released as frivolous or reduced as clearly excessive. In Feekes v. Triple M Construction, LLC, No. 41176-1-III, the court affirmed the denial of a homeowners' attempt to invalidate or reduce a contractor's lien under RCW 60.04.081. It emphasized the statute provides a narrowly framed remedy for liens that are indisputably without merit or unquestionably excessive, not an expedited vehicle for resolving genuine disputes over contract performance.

For decades, civil litigation followed a relatively familiar economic model. Plaintiffs pursued claims because they believed they had suffered a legal wrong. Attorneys evaluated these claims, often accepting representation on a contingency basis when they concluded the case had sufficient merit to justify the risk. Defendants assessed liability, measured litigation costs against settlement opportunities, and resolved disputes based largely upon the facts, the law, and the parties' respective tolerance for risk. The rapid growth of third-party litigation funding has altered that dynamic.

The Florida Supreme Court's decision in Perlmutter v. Federal Insurance Co., No. SC2024-0058 (Fla. June 11, 2026), resolves a significant conflict among Florida's district courts concerning the evidentiary threshold required, while limiting a defendant's ability to proffer rebuttal evidence, before a plaintiff may amend a pleading to seek punitive damages. The opinion provides much needed guidance regarding section 768.72, Florida Statutes, and reinforces the notion that the statutory gatekeeping function is intended to screen unsupported punitive damages claims; not to conduct a mini trial before the claim is ever pleaded.

California stands at the forefront of regulating transportation network companies (TNCs), but Senate Bill 623 moves beyond operational oversight into the courtroom. Effective for automobile accidents involving TNCs occurring on or after January 1, 2027, the legislation fundamentally changes how past medical expenses will be litigated in civil actions against transportation network companies, their subsidiaries, and app-based drivers.

Innovation drives the construction industry forward. Many of today's standard building materials were once viewed as untested alternatives. Architects and engineers have long been expected not only to design structures, but also to identify new methods, materials, and technologies that improve performance, reduce costs, enhance sustainability, or distinguish projects in an increasingly competitive marketplace.

Settlement ordinarily signals the end of a personal injury dispute. The parties agree on a number, the plaintiff executes a release, and the defendant or insurer issues payment. When Colorado Medicaid has paid for the plaintiff's injury-related medical care, however, resolving the underlying claim may not resolve all potential liability. Colorado law gives the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing (HCPF) an automatic statutory lien and an independent right of recovery, while imposing consequences when settlement proceeds are distributed without first protecting that interest. As a result, familiar safeguards, including a plaintiff's promise to satisfy outstanding liens, an indemnification provision, or language allocating settlement proceeds to nonmedical damages, may not provide the protection defendants and insurers expect. Understanding the interaction between Colorado's recovery statute and the federal law limiting Medicaid reimbursement is therefore an important part of settlement planning whenever Medicaid benefits are involved.

For more than a century, automobile liability has rested on the assumption that a human controlled the vehicle. Whether evaluating negligence, determining fault, or analyzing insurance coverage, courts have traditionally focused on the conduct of the individual behind the wheel. As automated driving systems (ADS) become increasingly capable of driving without human intervention, liability no longer turns exclusively on human decision-making.

Overruling more than three decades of precedent, the Michigan Court of Appeals significantly broadened recovery opportunities for personal protection insurance carriers pursuing subrogation claims against negligent third parties.

The California Legislature is considering legislation that would dramatically alter the landscape of residential construction defect litigation. Assembly Bill 1903, currently pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee, proposes extensive amendments to California's Right to Repair Act (Civil Code sections 895-945.5) that would substantially strengthen procedural protections for builders while narrowing the scope of recoverable construction defect claims.  

Louisiana has acted swiftly to overturn a recent Louisiana Supreme Court decision holding that an insurer's unconditional payment on a first-party property claim interrupts prescription. Effective June 9, 2026, House Bill 1117 provides that payments made under specified first-party property policies do not acknowledge a debt or extend the contractual prescriptive period. However, beginning January 1, 2027, insurers issuing unconditional payments under the dwelling or other structures coverage of a homeowner's policy must also provide written notice advising insureds that such payments do not interrupt, suspend, or extend the applicable deadline to file suit.

How far does an employer's duty of care extend? According to a recent Washington Court of Appeals decision, it may reach beyond the employee, the workplace, and even conception itself.

The Tennessee Supreme Court recently resolved an important question at the intersection of uninsured motorist coverage and personal injury litigation, In Haddon v. Vanlier, the Court held that a plaintiff who pursues recovery through an uninsured motorist carrier under Tennessee's Uninsured Motorist Act cannot recover prejudgment interest when the underlying action seeks damages for personal injuries. The decision reinforces that courts must look beyond the procedural posture of the case and instead examine the true nature, or gravamen, of the claim. For insurers, claims professionals and defense counsel, the ruling provides welcome clarity regarding the limits of exposure in uninsured motorist litigation and offers guidance for evaluating claims involving prejudgment interest.

In recent years, there has been a significant uptick in lawsuits brought by victims of sex trafficking against franchisors and franchisees of hotels where the alleged trafficking occurred. Alleged victims are more frequently seeking to hold these hotels accountable for knowingly or recklessly benefiting from sex trafficking on their properties under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA).

The United States Supreme Court's decision in Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp., Nos. 24-1021 and 24-1113 (U.S. Mar. 4, 2026), provides the Court's most comprehensive examination of the Federal arm-of-the-state doctrine in decades. Resolving conflicting decisions from New York and Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court held that the New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit) is not an arm of the State of New Jersey, and therefore, is not entitled to invoke interstate sovereign immunity in negligence suits filed in New York and Pennsylvania courts.

In a significant reaffirmation of Texas law governing appraisal provisions, the Texas Supreme Court, conditionally granted mandamus relief and directed the trial court to compel appraisal in a commercial property insurance dispute. The decision, In re Ace Insurance Company, et al., underscores a consistent theme in Texas jurisprudence. Where a dispute implicates the "amount of loss," appraisal should proceed, even in situations where coverage questions remain unresolved.

Alabama commands a distinctive place in the nation's civil justice landscape. Unlike most jurisdictions, Alabama remains one of only a handful of states that adheres to the doctrine of pure contributory negligence, under which a plaintiff's own negligence may serve as a complete bar to recovery. The Alabama Supreme Court reaffirmed that doctrine in Golden v. McCurry, 392 So.2d 815 (1980), rejecting calls to replace contributory negligence with comparative fault and leaving any such change to the Legislature.

The Washington Supreme Court's recent decision in Montes v. SPARC Group LLC, provides significant guidance regarding the scope of actionable injury under Washington's Consumer Protection Act (CPA). In answering a certified question from the Ninth Circuit, the Court held that a consumer who purchases a product at the advertised price after allegedly being misled by false discount advertising does not suffer an injury to "business or property" under the CPA where the consumer received the exact product sought at the agreed price and failed to allege any objective economic loss.

The California Supreme Court has confronted a longstanding tension between a litigant's statutory right to disqualify a judge and the judiciary's constitutional authority to control its own proceedings. In J.O. v. Superior Court, the court did not disturb the facial validity of Cal. Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6, which permits a party or attorney to seek automatic judicial disqualification based on a sworn statement of prejudice. It held that the statute cannot be used in bad faith as a blanket tool to force a judge out of an assignment, punish a judge for prior rulings, or interfere with the orderly administration of justice.

Traditionally, Industrial Code §23-4.2(k) occupied a familiar place in New York construction litigation. Plaintiffs routinely invoked the provision in excavation accident cases, arguing that owners and contractors could be held liable under Labor Law §241(6) when workers were exposed to the hazards posed by heavy excavation equipment.

In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Barrett, the Court held that state-law negligent-hiring claims against freight brokers are not preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) because such claims fall within the Act’s safety exception preserving state authority “with respect to motor vehicles.” The Court concluded that requiring a broker to exercise reasonable care in selecting a motor carrier “concerns” motor vehicles and therefore fits the safety exception, reversing the Seventh Circuit and remanding for further proceedings.

A Sacramento County jury recently returned a $110 million verdict, including $100 million in punitive damages, in an elder abuse case arising from the death of a 100-year-old who wandered outside her assisted living facility at night and died from hypothermia in temperatures reported to be approximately 38 degrees. That verdict, in Hernandez v. Formation Capital, Case No.34-2020-00275166-CU-PO-GDS, sets a high-water mark for elder abuse claims in California, more than double prior reported verdicts in comparable cases of $42 million.

In Nichols v. Alghannam, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of professional negligence and elder abuse claims against a physician who was not named until nearly five years after the plaintiff's death. The decision offers a useful reminder that plaintiffs cannot avoid MICRA's statute of limitations by recasting medical care allegations as something outside professional negligence, nor can they rely on broader elder abuse allegations without pleading the heightened culpability required by the statute.

Historically, in a typical personal injury trial, the central questions seemed straightforward. What happened and who is responsible? In recent times, however, those questions are being overshadowed by concerns over whether the claim itself can be trusted. In courtrooms across New York, allegations of fraud are becoming more prevalent and shaping affirmative defenses, investigations, discovery, and the way matters are ultimately tried before juries.

In an era where insureds increasingly expect comprehensive protection against an ever-expanding universe of risks, courts are being asked to redefine the role of the insurance producer. Should agents merely procure the coverage requested, or must they anticipate the risks an insured fails to articulate? The Illinois Appellate Court's decision in Van Order v. Hauk, 2025 IL App(4th) 250330-U, confronts this tension directly and declines to blur that line.

In high-stakes litigation, expert testimony is often the difference between liability and a defense verdict, but what happens when a key expert disappears on the eve of trial? In Diamond Hydraulics v. GAC Equipment, LLC, the Supreme Court of Texas confronted that question and delivered a clear message. While Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.6 imposes a demanding standard, it is not meant to produce unjust results.

Fire loss litigation often turns on expert testimony, particularly when physical evidence has been altered by remediation or repair. In those cases, courts are frequently asked to decide whether an expert's inability to inspect an undisturbed scene renders an opinion unreliable as a matter of law. A recent Texas appellate decision, Ghaznavi v. Arby Construction, Inc.,  provides important guidance on that question and offers a cautionary tale for litigants seeking to resolve causation disputes at the summary judgment stage.

Large loss property insurance disputes continue to play a defining role in North American coverage litigation, particularly as catastrophic weather events increase in both frequency and severity. In this evolving landscape, courts are increasingly called upon to interpret policy language, evaluate claims-handling conduct, and enforce contractual mechanisms designed to resolve disputes efficiently. Recent decisions applying Tennessee law provide a useful lens through which to examine these dynamics, particularly in the context of statutory bad faith claims and appraisal provisions.

A recent decision from the Washington Court of Appeals provides important guidance on personal jurisdiction over foreign product manufacturers in construction and infrastructure litigation. In King County v. Aquatherm GmbH, No. 85572-7-I (Wash.Ct. App.Div.I)(unpublished), the court addressed whether a German manufacturer could be sued in Washington for alleged defects in piping used in major public infrastructure projects. The ruling offers a detailed, fact-driven roadmap for how Washington courts evaluate jurisdiction over foreign manufacturers operating through layered distribution networks. It also reflects a broader trend toward focusing on real-world commercial conduct rather than formal corporate structure.

The California Legislature rarely moves in lockstep on issues involving the plaintiffs' bar and personal injury litigation, but recent committee votes suggest something unusual is happening in Sacramento this term. Two bills aimed at attorney solicitation schemes and the impacts of outside financial influence sailed through committee with unanimous bipartisan support. The votes were not close, not contentious, and not particularly ideological. That alone makes them notable.

On February 2, 2026, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc. that, in part, provides important clarification on how courts should evaluate unconscionability challenges based on an arbitration agreement's legibility and formatting. Ultimately, the Court reaffirmed that small-print and formatting are exclusively issues related to procedural unconscionability because they do not affect the substance of the agreement's terms. The Court also reaffirmed the traditional sliding scale analysis for evaluating unconscionability challenges, including that courts must "closely scrutinize" the contract's terms (i.e., substantive conscionability) when a high degree of procedural unconscionability is found.

New York's 2026 fiscal year executive budget introduces a sweeping package of civil justice reforms aimed at curbing insurance fraud, reducing inflated motor vehicle claims, and addressing what policymakers characterize as systematic litigation abuse. Framed primarily as an affordability initiative to reduce rising auto insurance premiums, the proposals would, if enacted, significantly reshape liability exposure, damages recovery, and trial procedure in automobile litigation statewide.

In 1046 Munras Properties. L.P. v. Kabod Coffee, a division of the Colorado Court of Appeals addressed a question not previously resolved in a published Colorado decision: whether a prevailing party may the attorney fees it incurred to secure and enforce the fee award itself (commonly called "fees on fees.") The division concluded that the contract at issue, read as a whole, entitled the prevailing landlord to seek fee on fees and the district court erred in denying them based on an overly narrow reading of the contract.

The Supreme Court of Nevada's decision in North River Insurance Company v. James River Insurance Company resolves a significant and unsettled question in Nevada insurance law. The court addressed whether an excess insurer may pursue an equitable subrogation claim against a primary insurer when the underlying litigation settles within the combined policy limits of both insurers. Answering a certified question from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court held that such claims are permitted under Nevada law when the insured would have suffered loss absent the excess insurer's payment.

In Yoder v. McCarthy Construction, Inc. (Pa. Oct. 23, 2025), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reaffirmed two foundational workers' compensation doctrines with major consequences for construction-site injury litigation. First, the Court refused to overrule Fonner v. Shandon, Inc. 724 A.2d 903 (Pa. 1999) holding that a general contractor's statutory employer tort immunity does not depend on whether the contractor actually paid workers' compensation benefits to the injured subcontractor employee. Second, the Court refused to overrule LeFlar v. Guld Creek Industrial Park #2, 515 A.2d 875 (Pa. 1986), again treating statutory employer immunity as a subject-matter jurisdiction issue that cannot be waived by late pleading.    

Law firms across the country are facing a renewed and increasingly sophisticated wave of fraudulent email and wire transfer scams targeting attorneys engaged in settlement negotiations, real estate transactions, and other matters involving the transfer of funds. These schemes- commonly referred to as Business Email Compromise (BEC) scams, pose significant financial, reputational, and professional liability risks to legal professionals and their clients.

California courts have long emphasized that civil litigation is not meant to reward surprise. The recent decision in McDonald v. Zargaryan (2025) 177 Cal.App.5th 344 offers a clear and forceful reminder that expert disclosure rules are not procedural niceties but structural safeguards designed to protect fairness, efficiency, and the integrity of the trial process.

Facial recognition and biometric surveillance are becoming normalized in the retail environment, not accompanied by broad public debate but through quiet deployment in everyday spaces like grocery stores. A recent controversy involving biometric-collection signage at Wegmans Grocery Stores illustrates how quickly routine loss-prevention practices can trigger heightened legal exposure. Unlike many AI accountability disputes, biometric surveillance is already governed by a growing patchwork of state and local laws, and retailers implementing these tools may face a risk profile that includes statutory damages, regulatory enforcement, and consumer class actions, often regardless of whether any shopper can prove downstream harm.

A recent California appellate decision involving two children who fell from a second-story bedroom window offers an important clarification for property owners, managers, and counsel who routinely deal with renovations in older buildings. In Jimenez v. Hayes Apartment Homes, the court drew a firm distinction between general negligence and negligence per se. In doing so, it held that the Building Code's "original materials" exemption does not apply to complete window replacements, and that modern window-safety requirements continue to apply when older buildings undergo alterations.

New York's civil practice rules are entering a new era of procedural efficiency, with two amendments that will impact everyday litigation strategy in state court. First, the Legislature enacted the Avoiding Vexatious Overuse of Impleading to Delay (AVOID) Act, which significantly modifies CPLR 1007 by imposing strict time limits on third-party practice. Governor Hochul signed the Act on December 19, 2025, and the changes become effective on April 18, 2026.

In a certified published opinion with significant implications for premises liability, residential inspections, and the scope of the Privette doctrine, the California Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment in favor of a homeowner whose property was the site of a work-related injury to an independent contractor's employee. Andrews v. Wagner confirms that homeowners may qualify as "hirers" for Privette purposes even when an inspection is arranged through an insurance carrier, and it reinforces the narrow application of the Kinsman concealed-hazard exception where the alleged danger is open, obvious, and within the scope of the contractor's work.

In an significant opinion, the California Court of Appeal reaffirmed a principle increasingly decisive in transportation-related litigation. When high-quality video footage tells a clear, objective story, courts may rely on it to resolve disputed narratives and dispose of negligence claims as a matter of law. In Agustin v. Golden Empire Transit District (No. F088135 (Cal. Ct. App., Nov. 26, 2025), the court affirmed summary judgment for a public transit agency and its driver after a long-time rider fell while standing on a moving bus. Despite allegations of negligence, the video showed no evidence of wrongdoing. Instead, it showed a passenger standing unbraced while holding a bag and a cell phone during an ordinary turn. For transit operators, public entities, and insurers, the case underscores the power of onboard camera evidence and clarifies the boundaries of common carrier liability.

Wrongful death litigation involving generative AI is no longer hypothetical. A new lawsuit arising from the death of an Connecticut woman, tests whether existing tort doctrines can be extended to alleged harmed caused not by a human advisor or professional, but by an AI system built to stimulate conversation, reinforce user engagement, and respond convincingly even in sensitive contexts. This case highlights the central legal question courts are increasingly being asked to answer: Can an AI developer be held responsible under negligence or product liability frameworks when their product is alleged to foreseeably amplify delusion, dependency, or paranoia?

Illinois rarely makes quiet changes to its legal landscape. When the state acts, it tends to do so decisively, often with an eye toward being out in front of national trends. The laws taking effect in 2026 are no exception. Taken together, they tell a clear story about what lawmakers are paying attention to right now. Artificial intelligence creeping into everyday decision-making, growing frustration with property misuse, a renewed focus on environmental restoration, and continued expansion of worker and consumer protections.

Oregon's 2026 laws read less like a routine legislative update and more like a snapshot of a state actively reshaping the rules around work, technology, and consumer protection. From artificial intelligence and digital privacy to wage liability, healthcare coverage, and online commerce, lawmakers have taken a clear position on issues that are no longer theoretical. The result is a set of statutes that reach deeply into how businesses operate, how data is handled, and how individuals are protected in an a increasingly digital economy.

In Semaho v. AMCO Insurance Company, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado addressed a familiar but consequential problem in commercial property insurance. Namely, how percentage deductibles apply when wind damages property that does not fit neatly into traditional "building" or "personal property" categories.

In the digital age, the line between private thought and public record has blurred. As artificial intelligence tools, such as ChatGPT, become embedded in everyday life, new vulnerabilities emerge in the legal and investigative landscape. What may feel like a solitary, confidential chat is rarely private. For instance, in a recent case surrounding the California Pacific Palisades wildfire investigation, one piece of evidence involved AI-generated outputs and prompts entered into ChatGPT. Officials used digital evidence including images generated on ChatGPT to connect the accused to the crime.^[i] While the particulars of that case remain under seal, the takeaway is ChatGPT searches and results can eventually become part of the record. This article will examine this question from a legal-risk perspective and discuss the vulnerabilities of chats entered into AI platforms. Users must recognize that AI conversations may not remain private. They may be logged, retrievable, and producible in litigation, regulatory investigation, or criminal prosecution.

Child death cases occupy a unique and complicated space in civil litigation. They combine profound emotional weight with complex medical and difficult factual questions, often against the backdrop of jurors' instinctive belief that someone must be held responsible. In that environment, even a strong defense can unravel quickly, damages can inflate rapidly, and moral judgment can eclipse legal standards.

Arbitration remains the preferred mechanism for many employers and businesses to resolve workplace and consumer disputes. However, California legislation, namely Code of Civil Procedure, section 1281.98, and recent cases construing it strictly, introduced procedural hurdles that jeopardized the enforcement of arbitration agreements. In Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court clarified the standards that apply to this situation, addressing whether (1) the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA, 9 U.S.C., § 1, et. seq,) preempts Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98, a provision of the California Arbitration Act (CAA, Code Civ. Proc., § 1280 et. seq.) that governs the timely payment of arbitration fees in employment and consumer disputes; (2) section 1281.98 should be strictly construed as effectuating the waiver of a party’s right to enforce arbitration if payment for the same is even one day late; and (3) section 1281.98 is applicable when an arbitration agreement unambiguously calls for enforcement of the same under the FAA.  

In recent years, New York courts and insurers have confronted a troubling rise in suspicious personal-injury claims tied to the construction industry. Patterns have emerged revealing the same lawyers, the same doctors, the same "witnesses," and, increasingly, the same litigation funders appearing across clusters of questionable accidents. These cases often follow a script. They involve rapid referrals to preferred medical providers, identical fact patterns, outsized treatment plans, and quick demands for high-value settlements. As insurers and defendants push back, courts are being asked to decide how far discovery may reach when the record suggests an orchestrated effort to manufacture claims for financial gain.

The case of Moss & Associates, LLC v. Daystar Peterson and Brickell Heights East Condominium Association, Inc. represents a quiet but significant correction in Florida construction law litigation. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal granted a petition for writ of certiorari and quashed a trial court order that denied a contractor's motion to stay litigation under Chapter 558, Florida Statutes.

California's discovery statutes serve several foundational goals within civil litigation. They promote fair resolution of disputes, facilitate the efficient exchange of information, and ensure that parties comply with procedural obligations designed to narrow issues and avoid unnecessary gamesmanship. Discovery sanctions, and, more specifically, fee-shifting, operate within this framework as tools that encourage compliance, deter misuse, and protect the integrity of the judicial process. Fee-shifting serves the additional function of placing the financial burden caused by discovery violations on the party and/or counsel responsible for the misconduct, instead of the innocent litigant.

In Bean v. City of Thousand Oaks, a decision with meaningful implications for public entities, insurers, and defense counsel, the California Court of Appeal held that a codefendant with an adverse interest may oppose another defendant's motion for summary judgment, even if it has not filed a cross-complaint. The court reaffirmed that standing turns on adverse interests, not pleading posture. Despite correcting the trial court's procedural error, the Court of Appeal ultimately affirmed the summary judgment for the adjacent homeowner because no triable issue of fact existed regarding her control over the sidewalk or the parkway tree that allegedly caused the plaintiff to trip and fall.

Construction projects often involve intricate designs, multiple stakeholders, and complex performance obligations. When problems surface years after completion, parties must navigate a difficult landscape that blends contract law, tort doctrines, and statutory deadlines. A recent decision from the Fourth Court of Appeals of Texas provides meaningful guidance on how courts will evaluate latent construction defect claims, the applicability of the discovery rule, and the limits of the economic loss doctrine. In Morningside Ministries v. Koontz McCombs Construction, Ltd., the court reversed summary judgment entered in favor of the general contractor and project manager, reviving the owner's claims and offering important lessons for owners, contractors, and insurers facing construction defect disputes.

Construction defect litigation often turns on questions of timing as much as on the substance of alleged deficiencies. In Pennsylvania, the statute of repose governing construction projects provides builders and contractors with a powerful defense that can extinguish claims long before they are filed. The recent decision in Aloia v. Diament Building Corp., underscores the judiciary's commitment to enforcing the statutory bar, even in cases framed under consumer protection laws or premised upon allegations of building code violations.

California's insurance market is in free fall. Following the catastrophic Altadena and Pacific Palisades fires and a string of other climate-driven disasters, families and businesses are finding themselves underinsured, uninsured, or entangled in endless disputes with their carriers over smoke damage, contents coverage, and basic claims processing. The California FAIR Plan Association (FAIR Plan), once a "last resort" backstop, is rapidly becoming the default option, even though its coverage limits and terms are deeply inadequate for the realities of California's housing stock, commercial markets, and wildfire risks. 

California is on the cusp of a significant shift in the landscape of survival litigation. For decades, Code of Civil Procedure section 377.34 barred recovery of a decedent's pain, suffering, or disfigurement in survival actions, limiting those claims to economic damages the decedent sustained before death. This framework placed California among the minority of jurisdictions that prohibited noneconomic survival damages.

Beginning January 1, 2026, Oregon will enter a new era of construction defect law. House Bill 3746, touted as "major construction reform," marks one of the most significant shifts in the state's approach to condominium and planned community liability in decades.

Mediation has become a mainstay of modern litigation. Courts encourage it, insurers rely on it, and parties treat it as a practical path to resolution without the staggering cost of trial. Yet despite its ubiquity, many lawyers and claims professionals still approach mediation as an informal discussion, a chance to see where things stand, or worse, a fishing expedition.