Publications

Copyright infringement demands involving photographs have become increasingly common. A business may receive a letter asserting that a photograph appearing on its website, social media account, or promotional materials was used without authorization and demanding thousands of dollars to resolve a dispute.

"Always stay current with technology but be way of the bleeding edge — it's sharp."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Slogans such as, “We fight for millions” or “Get the settlement you deserve” do more than attract potential clients—they recalibrate public perception of justice itself. Through sheer repetition, these ads teach jurors that multi-million-dollar awards are not only normal, but also expected. By the time a trial begins, many jurors walk in with inflated notions of value and entitlement, subtly shifting verdicts, settlements, and, ultimately, the cost of doing business.

For businesses, this shift changes the stakes of every lawsuit. A claim that once might have been resolved for its actual economic value now risks be­ing judged against a backdrop of headline-grabbing verdicts promoted in advertising campaigns. The result is built-in pressure on defendants to settle for more than the claim is worth simply to avoid a runaway jury award.

Question: What requirements does Florida Statute §553.837 place on newly constructed residential homes? What does this mean for builders and insurance professionals, and what should they keep in mind moving forward?

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.

The Supreme Court of Texas has sharply limited when foreign manufacturers can be sued in the state, ruling that an Austrian aircraft-engine maker cannot be hauled into Texas courts over a crash at a local airport. The opinion reinforces Texas' strict application of the "stream-of-commerce-plus" test and underscores that merely foreseeing a product's eventual arrival in Texas is not enough to establish specific personal jurisdiction.

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.

Effective July 1, 2025, Florida Statute §553.837 imposes a mandatory one-year warranty on all newly constructed residential homes, including single-family dwellings, duplexes, triplexes, quadruplexes, and modular or factory-built units that have never previously been occupied. This statutory requirement establishes a robust baseline of guarantees for homeowners but also introduces new exposures for builders that typical Commercial General Liability (CGL) policies may not fully address.

Courts have long recognized that sanctions may be imposed when a party destroys evidence relevant to pending claims. The Colorado Supreme Court's decision in Keaten v. Terra Management Group, LLC clarifies a critical question for litigants, property managers, and counsel alike: At what point does the duty to preserve evidence arise before a lawsuit is filed? The ruling delineates an objective, fact-specific standard for determining when litigation is "reasonably foreseeable." The Court's opinion provides both clarity and caution, reinforcing that the preservation obligation extends beyond pending lawsuits to situations where litigation is likely or imminent.

In Kronfeld v. Malone, the New Jersey Appellate Division reaffirmed the judiciary's firm stance on discovery management and procedural compliance. The plaintiff, Natalia Kronfeld, pursued a series of legal malpractice actions – first against her former divorce attorneys, and later against the attorney who represented her in the malpractice suit. After nearly 1,300 days of discovery and eight separate motions for extensions, the trial court drew a line by denying further discovery and ultimately granting summary judgment to the defense.

The Connecticut Supreme Court recently addressed whether insurance brokers have a duty to notify clients of an insurer's nonrenewal decision. In Deer v. National General Ins. Co., homeowners, whose policy lapsed before their home was destroyed by a fire, sought to hold their longtime brokers liable for failing to alert them to the insurer's communication regarding nonrenewal. The Court rejected the claim, reaffirming that a broker's duty ordinarily ends once the requested policy is procured, and that liability arises only if the broker affirmatively undertakes to assist with renewals.

On August 1, 2025, a Miami jury rendered a verdict that immediately reverberated through the products liability community. In Benavides v. Tesla, jurors awarded more than $240 million in damages, including $200 million in punitive damages, after finding Tesla partially responsible for a fatal 2019 motor vehicle accident involving its Autopilot system. The verdict was the first in the United States to hold Tesla liable in a wrongful death action tied directly to Tesla's Autopilot's operation, and it arrived after years of litigation and intense public scrutiny over advanced driver-assist systems. Tesla has vowed to appeal, and post-trial motions will almost certainly test the size and constitutionality of the punitive damages award.