STRAFFORD COUNTY NEW HAMPSHIRE ROOFING EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Celebrating Freedom: The Overlooked Freedom to Contract in Commercial Insurance

July 20, 2026 — Michael S. Levine & Andrea DeField - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Happy 4th and 250 years of freedom . . . to contract! Many policyholders assume insurance policies are “standard” and must be accepted as-is. That assumption is often wrong—and dangerously limiting. Unlike many consumer insurance markets, the commercial insurance realm preserves a robust “freedom to contract,” allowing sophisticated policyholders to negotiate terms, exclusions, definitions, and limits before a policy is even issued. Particularly in recent years, high-profile disputes over cyber coverage, business interruption, and war/cyber exclusions have shown not just what happens when coverage is denied, but what could have been done up front to avoid those fights. This post highlights the power policyholders still hold in the negotiation process and illustrates, with concrete examples from recent media-covered disputes, how that freedom can be strategically used. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and Andrea DeField, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@hunton.com Ms. DeField may be contacted at adefield@hunton.com Read the full story...

---

The “Pay When Paid” Clause in California Construction—Strategies as the Battle Continues

August 03, 2026 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
It is well known in California Construction circles that the “Pay If Paid” clause is illegal in this state. There is a great distinction, though, between this clause and a similar clause, known as a “Pay When Paid” clause. A pay if paid clause allows a contractor to tell a subcontractor that if the contractor is unpaid for the subcontractor’s work, then the contractor has no legal obligation to pay the subcontractor, ever. For a great variety of reasons, the California Supreme Court, in the case of Wm. R. Clarke Corp v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America (1997) 15 Cal.4th 882, declared this type of clause illegal in California Construction. Although the pay if paid clause is illegal in California, the pay when paid clause is still perfectly legal and is found in many subcontracts that contractors issue to their subcontractors. The pay when paid clause allows a contractor to delay paying its subcontractors until the dispute between the contractor and the property owner over payment has been resolved and the contractor is paid by the property owner. Although seemingly reasonable (since it merely delays payment until the contractor is paid by the owner, thereby providing a funding source to pay subcontractors), significant problems still arise. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

---

Navigating the New Frontier of Federal-State Energy Regulation: What Energy Companies Need to Know

June 08, 2026 — Ryan J. Regula - Snell & Wilmer
Introduction The jurisdictional boundary between the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the states is being actively contested, from challenges to landmark transmission planning rules to disputes over emergency cost-allocation orders, in ways that carry significant legal, financial, and operational implications for energy companies. For utilities, independent power producers, and transmission developers, understanding these dynamics is now a strategic imperative. The Jurisdictional Divide: A Bright Line That Isn’t The Federal Power Act divides authority between FERC and the states: FERC exercises jurisdiction over interstate transmission and wholesale electricity sales, while states retain authority over generation facilities, retail rates, and decisions about resource mix. The D.C. Circuit has regularly been called upon to “referee the Federal Power Act’s jurisdictional line separating [FERC’s] jurisdiction over the federal wholesale market and States’ jurisdiction over facilities used in local distribution.”1 Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ryan J. Regula, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Regula may be contacted at rregula@swlaw.com

---

Emerging Issues in Construction CGL Insurance Part 2: The Separation of Insureds and Additional Insured Interests

September 29, 2026 — Eric M. Clarkson - SDV Fenchurch
Many coverage disputes hinge on first principles—the fundamentals of insurance —rather than the minutiae. Unfortunately, the basic anatomy of insurance policies can get lost sometimes when parties are laser-focused on a particular term or set of circumstances. This is true not just in disputes, but also when writing coverage. One of the fundamentals that is commonly misunderstood and overlooked—but which is absolutely critical to the intended operation of insurance coverage—is what is commonly known as the “separation of insureds.” The “separation of insureds” is the concept that each “insured” under a policy are referred to and treated differently, and most of all that the distinctions matter. The concept is usually included as a condition in the policy. It embodies the requirement that the policy applies to each insured distinctly from how it applies to other insureds. The ISO Form CGL policies specifically state that they apply “[s]eparately to each insured against whom a claim is made or ‘suit’ is brought.” The separate and distinct treatment of insureds is more critical in construction operations than anywhere else. This distinction is essential to ensure coverage works as intended, especially when contracted operations are involved, because the policy must insure the subcontractor that purchased the policy, the general contractor who hired the subcontractor, and the owner that hired the general contractor. Even small modifications can easily frustrate the intent of the parties. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Eric M. Clarkson, SDV Fenchurch
Mr. Clarkson may be contacted at eric.clarkson@sdvfenchurch.us

---

Actual Controversy Without Actual Exhaustion: California Supreme Court Allows Declaratory Relief and Bad Faith Claims Against Excess Insurers

August 24, 2026 — Kyle A. Rudolph - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
California courts were previously split on the issue of whether an insured may bring declaratory relief claims against excess insurers prior to the exhaustion of underlying insurance. Some California courts held that the actual exhaustion of underlying insurance was necessary, whereas other courts allowed for these types of claims to proceed.[1] Recently, the California Supreme Court addressed this split of authority and, in doing so, handed down a significant win for policyholders. In Fox Paine & Company, LLC, et al. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company et al., the Court held that insureds may proceed with bringing forth viable declaratory relief and bad faith claims against excess insurers prior to the exhaustion of underlying insurance.[2] A summary of the Court’s opinion is provided below. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kyle A. Rudolph, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Rudolph may be contacted at KRudolph@sdvlaw.com

---

Las Vegas Partner Jeffrey Saab and Team Leader D. Ryan Efros Secure a $0.00 Settlement on a Multimillion-Dollar Construction Defect Case!

April 14, 2026 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Partner Jeffrey Saab and Team Leader D. Ryan Efros’ client was a construction supervisor on a palatial mansion. The homeowners claimed millions of dollars in damages and asserted the client was a general contractor (GC) and so responsible for the alleged defects. Jeff and Ryan took more than 15 depositions, reinforcing their trial strategy theme: that the client was not a GC, but Plaintiffs were. They secured significant concessions from Plaintiffs, pressed Plaintiffs’ own negligent construction choices, and made the risk of trying the case intolerable. On the eve of trial, Plaintiffs backed down, settling out Jeff and Ryan’s client for $0.00. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

---

Arizona Court of Appeals Clarifies Homeowners Association Open Meeting Requirements

June 29, 2026 — Jill Casson Owen, Benjamin J. Hawkins & Stephen Wright - Snell & Wilmer
A Z N H Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0424 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2026) OVERVIEW The Arizona Court of Appeals issued an opinion clarifying how homeowners associations must conduct meetings under A.R.S. § 33-1804. The decision reinforces the legislative policy favoring transparency in association governance, bringing association meeting requirements more in line with the open meeting standards applicable to public bodies under A.R.S. § 38-431 et seq. (Arizona’s Open Meeting Law). KEY HOLDINGS 1. All Voting and Formal Actions Must Occur in Open Meetings The Court affirmed that association boards cannot vote or take formal action during closed (executive) sessions. Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), associations may close portions of meetings only for “consideration” of certain enumerated topics, such as legal advice, pending litigation, or personal/financial information about individual members. The Court interpreted “consideration” to mean discussion and deliberation, not voting. The Court noted that dictionaries define “consider” as “spending time thinking about a possibility” and “formulating an opinion,” which are processes that precede formal action. This interpretation mirrors how Arizona’s Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 38-431.03(D)) prohibits public bodies from voting in executive session. Reprinted courtesy of Jill Casson Owen, Snell & Wilmer, Benjamin J. Hawkins, Snell & Wilmer and Stephen Wright, Snell & Wilmer Ms. Owen may be contacted at jowen@swlaw.com Mr. Hawkins may be contacted at bhawkins@swlaw.com Mr. Wright may be contacted at swright@swlaw.com Read the full story...

---

WSHB Managing Partner Chad Dunigan Named Finalist for Jerrold S. Oliver "Ollie" Award of Excellence

May 12, 2026 — Wood Smith Henning Berman
Chad Dunigan, Managing Partner of Wood Smith Henning & Berman's Orlando, Florida, office, has been selected as one of just four finalists for the prestigious Jerrold S. Oliver Award of Excellence, affectionately known in the construction defect community as the "Ollie" Award. This distinguished honor recognizes individuals who have made exceptional contributions and demonstrated unwavering dedication to advancing the field of construction defect law. Named in honor of the late Judge Jerrold S. Oliver, a revered founder of alternative dispute resolution in construction defect claims and litigation, the Ollie award symbolizes loyalty, commitment, and trust within the industry. Judge Oliver's legacy as a staunch believer in the resolution process continues to inspire professionals who strive for excellence in the construction defect community. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wood Smith Henning Berman

---