Modular Construction’s Hidden Risk: Where Things Go Wrong Between the Factory and the Field
June 15, 2026 —
Jack Mayo - ConsensusDocsIntroduction
As modular and prefabricated construction methods are increasingly adopted, so too are the potential challenges that come with them. The appeal is straightforward: faster timelines, controlled fabrication environments, and reduced on-site labor demands. But the risks that accompany these benefits are often less clear—and, in many cases, poorly defined.
For example, what happens when a prefabricated component is delayed past its installation window? Who is responsible for a defect discovered inside a sealed, installed module? What happens to warranty obligations when a prefabricated component must be modified on site?
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jack Mayo, Jones Walker LLPMr. Mayo may be contacted at
jmayo@joneswalker.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
Insureds’ Altering Dates for Hailstorm Damage Justifies Denial of Claim
June 02, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Firth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the insurer due to the insureds’ failure to establish the date of loss after a hailstorm. Cutchall v. Chubb Lloyds Ins. Co. of Texas, 2026 WL 625633 (5th Cir. March 5, 2026).
In September 2021, the Cutchalls made a claim on their policy for interior water damage due to a hailstorm that breached their roof. Chubb retained two engineers to inspect the home, but neither found evidence that a hailstorm caused the damage. Instead, the engineers concluded a variety of other causes, such as poor ventilation and as-built defects, caused the damage. Because Chubb concluded that some of these other causes were covered by the policy, it paid only for the covered portions.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.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
Four HHMR Attorneys Recognized in the 2027 Editions of Best Lawyers®
September 21, 2026 —
Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC - Colorado Construction Litigation BlogHiggins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC is proud to announce that Best Lawyers® has recognized four HHMR attorneys in the 2027 editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America for their work in construction law and construction litigation.
David M. McLain, Lisa Bondy Dunn, and Steven L. Heisdorffer earned recognition in the 2027 edition of The Best Lawyers in America®. Ricky L. Nolen, Jr. earned recognition in the 2027 edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America.
For a firm that has deliberately focused its practice on construction law and construction litigation for nearly 25 years, we take particular pride in seeing that focus reflected in the recognition of lawyers across different generations of HHMR.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Breaking Ground On New California Public Works Prevailing Wage Requirements
April 27, 2026 —
Heather Frisch, Christopher Bouquet & Ashley Stein - The Construction SeytSeyfarth Synopsis: As of January 1, 2026, AB 889 bulldozed California’s Prevailing Wage law, which impacts public works employers—including public agencies, the contractors that work for them, and private owners and developers whose projects may be subject to public works requirements. The amended law reframes the calculation of fringe benefits for individuals who work on public works project and mandates annualization of such benefits, demolishes the practice of frontloading these benefits, and requires employers to maintain inspection-ready records of compliance.
This year, AB 889 significantly revised California’s prevailing wage law, codified at Labor Code section 1773.1, to clarify the state’s prevailing wage regulations and streamline enforcement. Accordingly, as of January 1, 2026, California public works employers are required to annualize employees’ fringe benefits and maintain specific documentation demonstrating statutory compliance. These new obligations impact public agencies and their contractors, as well as private owners and developers whose projects may be subject to public works requirements. Continue reading for the blueprint of how to comply with the state’s amended prevailing wage law.
Reprinted courtesy of
Heather Frisch, Seyfarth Shaw LLP,
Christopher Bouquet, Seyfarth Shaw LLP and
Ashley Stein, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Ms. Frisch may be contacted at hfrisch@seyfarth.com
Mr. Bouquet may be contacted at cbouquet@seyfarth.com
Ms. Stein may be contacted at astein@seyfarth.com
Read the full story...
Turnover Traps for Community Associations: Investigate First, Release Claims Later
April 14, 2026 —
Nicholas B. Vargo - Ball Janik LLPTurnover of a community association from developer control to owner control is a uniquely vulnerable moment. Developers are increasingly presenting Florida condominium and homeowners’ associations with “standard” settlement or release agreements at turnover, often being framed as routine steps to finalize the transition of control. In reality, these agreements can have sweeping consequences, including the release of construction-defect claims before the association has conducted any meaningful independent evaluation.
The developer has years of project knowledge and access to plans, subcontractors, and internal records. The newly elected board is just beginning to organize, obtain documents, and understand the property’s condition. Many defects, especially those involving roofing, waterproofing, windows, or structural components, are latent and not yet visible. Signing a release at this stage means the association is making a binding decision under conditions of uncertainty, without full information, to release all future potential claims.
Over the last few years, there has been a rise in reports of developers offering a packaged deal: they agree to complete certain repairs, often minor punch-list or cosmetic items, and to “forgive” an alleged financial deficit (often around $50,000) supposedly owed by the association from the developer-control period. In exchange, the association is asked to sign a broad release covering all claims, including known and unknown construction defects. To a new HOA board that received their community with limited operating and reserve funds, they are left with a difficult decision to either accept the developer’s offer or assess their owners to pay this alleged debt.
These agreements are occasionally presented through community management companies, which may describe them as “standard” or "routine.” Whether due to misunderstanding or influence from the developer, management companies can unintentionally reinforce the idea that signing is expected. Any recommendation provided to HOAs about whether to sign these releases could open community management to liability down the road. The best practice for both associations and community managers is to refer any agreements to be reviewed by general counsel for the association.
The following two case studies illustrate the real-world consequences:
Case Study One: A newly transitioned board relies on its management company to negotiate with the developer-builder to resolve irrigation issues, pond concerns, and signage deficiencies, along with forgiving an asserted financial shortfall. In exchange, the board signs a broad release covering all claims, including latent defects.
Within a year, several punch-list items remain incomplete, and more serious issues arise. When the association demands completion, the developer delays, prompting the association to seek advice on how to enforce the settlement agreement. The association hires counsel to hold the developer responsible for both the previously agreed-upon items and newly identified construction defects. However, when the association brings claims against the developer, the developer points to the release of all potential construction defects in the community. Thus, the only remaining remedy is limited to enforcement of the specific punch-list terms. The community, still relatively new, has no viable claims against the developer-builder for the construction defects. With warranties expired and the release, the association must fund repairs through special assessments, despite defects that would otherwise have been actionable.
Case Study Two: A community is presented with a similar agreement as above. The management company encourages execution, suggesting it is standard and even telling the board to “name your price.” The developer also pressures the newly elected board to sign.
Instead of signing, the board consults with their attorney. Counsel advises the board not to sign the release and recommends further investigation. Engineers are retained and identify early indicators of broader issues, including stucco cracking, water intrusion, and irrigation deficiencies. Based on this information, the association declines to sign the release. Subsequent evaluation reveals potentially significant construction-defect claims, allowing the community to pursue recovery that would have been lost under the proposed agreement.
These scenarios underscore a fundamental point: signing a release at turnover is not an administrative formality—it is a major legal decision. Board members act in a fiduciary capacity on behalf of their community, and their decisions can bind all current and future owners. At turnover, an association’s right is to investigate and pursue claims. Preserving that right until a full and independent evaluation is completed is not adversarial—it is responsible governance.
Accordingly, associations should retain independent evaluations of the property and consult qualified legal counsel before signing any “standard” agreements, especially ones involving a release of future claims.
Nicholas B. Vargo is a partner in Ball Janik LLP’s Construction Practice Group. He may be reached at nvargo@balljanik.com.
Idaho Contractor Registration: Lessons from the Ward v. Bishop Decision
April 20, 2026 —
Tara Martens Miller - Snell & WilmerThe Idaho Supreme Court’s recent decision in Ward v. Bishop Constr., Ltd. Liab. Co., No. 51118, 2025 Ida. LEXIS 143 (Dec. 31, 2025) offers valuable guidance for contractors and construction attorneys navigating the Idaho Contractor Registration Act (ICRA). The December 2025 ruling clarifies critical questions about when and how defendants may raise contractor registration defenses, the weight of pretrial stipulations, and the consequences of procedural missteps in construction litigation. This article examines the key takeaways from the decision and offers practical actions for consideration by those working in Idaho’s construction industry.
The Facts Behind the Dispute
The case arose from a long-standing working relationship between cousins Joel Ward and Ren Bishop dating to the 1990s. Ward performed general construction work for Bishop Construction, LLC, including building, plumbing, electrical, framing, roofing, and siding work on projects in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Bishop agreed to pay Ward $10 per hour, later increased to $12 per hour, plus one-way travel expenses. Between 2017 and 2019, Ward worked over 1,100 hours but was never paid, totaling $12,443.54 in claimed damages.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tara Martens Miller, Snell & WilmerMs. Miller may be contacted at
tmmiller@swlaw.com
