Arbitration in Construction Disputes: Process and Best Practices
July 27, 2026 —
Construction ExecutiveArbitration in construction disputes is a private process where owners, contractors, subcontractors, designers or suppliers present claims to one or more neutral arbitrators instead of taking the dispute through court. The arbitrator reviews evidence, hears testimony and issues a decision that is usually binding.
Construction arbitration is common because project disputes are technical, document-heavy and time-sensitive. Claims may involve schedule delays, disputed change orders, defective work, differing site conditions, payment, termination, indemnity, surety issues or professional liability.
Arbitration can be faster and more specialized than litigation, but speed is not guaranteed. Poor contract language, broad discovery, weak records and unclear damages can make arbitration expensive.
Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the full story...
At the Intersection of Indemnity and Prevailing Wages
March 17, 2026 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIn a case that I’m frankly surprised I don’t see more of, the 2nd District Court of Appeal of California examined an indemnity claim by a subcontractor against a general contractor and public entity who mistakenly believed that a construction project did not require the payment of prevailing wages.
The Nabors Case
In
Nabors Corporate Services, Inc. v. City of Long Beach, 108 Cal.App 540 (2025), subcontractor Nabors Corporate Services, Inc. sued general contractor Tidelands Oil Production Company and the City of Long Beach after it was found liable in a class action lawsuit for failing to pay prevailing wages to its employees. Nabors’ contract with Tidelands did not require the payment of prevailing wages and neither Tidelands nor the City believed that the project, which involved “oil well plug and abandonment” work, required the payment of prevailing wages.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
EPA Steps Back, Arizona Moves Forward
May 12, 2026 —
Patrick J. Paul, John Habib & Sukhmani K. Singh - Snell & WilmerIn a significant development for Arizona’s business community and environmental policymakers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has paused its planned reclassification of Maricopa County from “Moderate” to “Serious” ozone nonattainment status pursuant to the Clean Air Act’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
This decision marks a shift in federal air policy — one that recognizes the unique challenges faced by regions like metro Phoenix, where environmental conditions beyond local control are often key contributors to air quality readings.
The EPA’s move follows a series of meetings between EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, Arizona elected officials, and business and civic leaders, including a recent roundtable in Phoenix convened by U.S. Senator Mark Kelly. In announcing the pause, Zeldin acknowledged the need for flexibility and fairness in the application of Clean Air Act standards, especially when emissions from other states, nations, and natural events significantly influence local air quality.
Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick J. Paul, Snell & Wilmer,
John Habib, Snell & Wilmer and
Sukhmani K. Singh, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Paul may be contacted at ppaul@swlaw.com
Mr. Habib may be contacted at jhabib@swlaw.com
Ms. Singh may be contacted at ssingh@swlaw.com
Read the full story...
Lawmakers Vote to Reauthorize Programs to Support Water Quality, Coastal Protection
April 20, 2026 —
Pam McFarland - Engineering News-RecordThe U.S. House of Representatives has passed a package of 14 bills that includes measures to reauthorize several U.S. Environmental Protection Agency programs to protect and restore critical water ecosystems, expand access to broadband, reduce regulatory requirements on airport projects and programs and lower costs of federal buildings.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pam McFarland, Engineering News-RecordMs. McFarland may be contacted at
mcfarlandp@enr.com
A Permitting Base Checklist for Data Centers and Power Plants
June 02, 2026 —
Michael S. McDonough, Stephen J. Humes & Stacey C. Wright - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogThere is a lot of talk these days about “license to operate” for data centers, meaning management of the relationships with stakeholders and broader communities concerning both the benefits and adverse consequences of locating a facility in a particular locale. Here, we are speaking of “license to operate” more literally—namely, the legal and regulatory permitting and approval requirements for a privately owned data center whether by itself or colocated with a power generating plant.
Our Base Checklist includes generally and potentially applicable permitting requirements for development and operation, using California as an example. (Taking legal authority Frank Sinatra out of context, “If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere.”) The actual requirements for a given facility would depend, in part, on local law, including planning and zoning laws and plans, and the environment of the site. Just as examples, additional permitting and mitigation requirements might apply if sensitive receptors are located nearby (e.g., noise mitigation for residential dwellings), if sensitive and protected biological resources (e.g., jurisdictional waters and/or protected species) would be impacted, or if the present or former land uses require additional measures (e.g., hazardous materials remediation, mitigation for conversion of prime farmland, or protection of cultural resources). The scope of permit requirements would ultimately be determined by the applicable regulatory agencies and by the lead and responsible agencies under the applicable state environmental land use regime—in our reference case here, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. McDonough, Pillsbury,
Stephen J. Humes, Pillsbury and
Stacey C. Wright, Pillsbury
Mr. McDonough may be contacted at michael.mcdonough@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Humes may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Wright may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com
Read the full story...
That’s a Wrap! Pennsylvania Court Holds Arbitration Clause in Online Agreement Unenforceable
May 14, 2026 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Duffy v. Tatum, 2026 Pa. Super. LEXIS 112, 2026 PA Super 41, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Superior Court) considered whether an arbitration provision contained in the online Terms of Service on the defendant’s website were enforceable. The plaintiff, Daniel Duffy (Duffy), visited the website of defendant, Dolly, Inc. (Dolly), to purchase moving services. Duffy selected the number of movers, items to be moved and the type of vehicle needed. To complete the booking, the website required Duffy to checkmark a box labeled “By checking this box I accept the Dolly Terms of Service.” Duffy did not have to open the link or scroll to the bottom of the agreement before being able to click on the checkmark box. The Terms of Service included an arbitration provision requiring that any dispute related to the moving services to be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the American Arbitration Association. The Terms of Service did not include any statement that the user was waiving the right to a jury trial. The Superior Court found the internet Terms of Service unenforceable.
During the moving process, an accident occurred and injured Duffy. In May 2024, Duffy and his wife sued Dolly and other related entities alleging negligence and loss of consortium. Dolly filed preliminary objections alleging that the parties agreed to alternative dispute resolution. The lower court overruled the preliminary objections, finding that Dolly’s website did not provide reasonably obvious notice of its Terms of Service to Duffy and, as such, Duffy never agreed to waive his constructional right to a jury trial. Dolly filed an appeal to the Superior Court.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and Williams LLPMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
Italian Court Convicts 32 in Morandi Bridge Collapse Case
August 25, 2026 —
Bryan Gottlieb - Engineering News-RecordFormer Autostrade per l'Italia CEO Giovanni Castellucci was sentenced to 12 years in prison July 16 after an Italian court handed down the first criminal verdicts stemming from the 2018 Morandi Bridge collapse in Genoa that killed 43 people.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bryan Gottlieb, Engineering News-RecordMr. Gottlieb may be contacted at
gottliebb@enr.com
Ninth Circuit Holds That Policies Covering Environmental Claims Do Not Have Aggregate Limits
May 12, 2026 —
Lorelie S. Masters & Joseph T. Niczky - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogIn the case of
County of San Bernardino v. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, the Ninth Circuit recently addressed the issue of whether general liability policies issued in the 1960s and 1970s included aggregate limits for claims arising under the premises-operations coverage in CGL policies. The difference between the policyholder’s interpretation of the policies’ limits clauses and the insurer’s interpretation was worth hundreds of millions of dollars in exposure for the insurer. The Court closely examined the policy language and extrinsic evidence from both the insurance industry’s drafting history and the parties before concluding that the policies were ambiguous. The Court construed that ambiguity in favor of the policyholder and ruled that aggregate limits did not apply to the claims at issue. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of carefully examining a policy’s limits, especially for older policies written before 1986 when the insurance industry revised the standard-form CGL policy to state the aggregate limits apply not only to products liability claims but to premises-operations claims as well. Decades of insurance industry drafting history confirms, as the policyholder’s submissions in this case indicate, that the industry well understood that operations claims like the environmental waste-disposal claims at issue here typically were not subject to aggregate limits.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and
Joseph T. Niczky, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@hunton.com
Mr. Niczky may be contacted at jniczky@hunton.com
Read the full story...
