Navigating Timelines and Technology: Patent Strategies for Space and Earth
June 01, 2026 —
Kate Nuehring Su & Vanessa Wang - Engineering News-RecordMore than half a century after the Apollo 11 landing
fulfilled President John F. Kennedy’s bold vision, the global race back to the Moon is no longer theoretical. With renewed attention on NASA’s Artemis program and a surge of commercial investment in space infrastructure, lunar exploration is again shaping technology priorities here on Earth.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kate Nuehring Su, Engineering News-Record and
Vanessa Wang, Engineering News-Record Read the full story...ENR may be contacted at
enr@enr.com
From Dark Data to Building Intelligence
July 13, 2026 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessIn this episode, I talk with Mark Sorsa-Leslie, founder and CEO of
Auttaa AI, whose team just won first place in Luotea’s inaugural hackathon in Helsinki for turning property maintenance from reactive firefighting into proactive forecasting with AI. Mark is a chartered surveyor with 30 years of real estate data experience, previously the founder of the UK sensor company Beringar.
We discuss why so much building data stays dark and siloed, from outdated networking technology to the shortage of people who understand both engineering and property. Mark explains how Auttaa bridges real-time building data with large language models, using what he calls an “influence graph” to surface correlations and causation across previously disconnected systems, such as linking occupancy patterns to CO2 readings to diagnose ventilation problems in minutes rather than days.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
Arizona Court Enters $323 Million Judgment Against ZOM Living Following Unanimous Jury Verdict
May 26, 2026 —
Gray Development GroupPHOENIX, May 19, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- A Maricopa County court has entered a $323 million compensatory damages judgment in favor of Gray Development Group against ZOM Holding Inc., doing business as ZOM Living, following a 12-day trial, a unanimous jury verdict and post-trial proceedings related to a proposed business transaction.
The jury found ZOM liable on claims of breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing stemming from a proposed joint venture tied to a planned pipeline of luxury multifamily and commercial projects in Phoenix and Scottsdale.
The lawsuit centered on a 13-project, $1.4 billion development pipeline originated and planned by Gray Development Group over more than a decade. In 2019, Gray invited Florida-based ZOM to participate in a joint venture involving the completion of five projects, which would have marked ZOM's entry into the Arizona market.
According to court findings presented at trial, the companies entered into a mutual confidentiality and non-circumvention agreement before Gray shared extensive sensitive and proprietary information related to the projects, including planning, market analysis, costs, financial data, local business relationships and operational strategies developed by Gray over decades in Arizona.
Evidence presented during trial showed that over a 10-month period while under contract, ZOM made hundreds of requests for confidential project and market information before circumventing Gray and pursuing the projects independently, ultimately displacing Gray from projects it spent years planning and developing.
ZOM Living, headquartered in Orlando, develops multifamily and senior housing communities across the United States and operates regional offices in Boston, Dallas, Fort Lauderdale, Nashville, Phoenix, and Raleigh. ZOM is owned by Timeless Investments, the Amsterdam-based family office of Dutch businessman Hans van Veggel, which acquired the company in 1997.
About Gray Development Group
Gray Development Group was founded by architect Bruce Gray in 1991. The Phoenix-based company was the top-ranked multifamily developer in Arizona for more than a decade. The company designed and developed more than 15,000 apartment and condominium units throughout metropolitan Phoenix. Two Gray-designed developments — a Tempe midrise and a San Diego high-rise — received National Apartment Community of the Year awards.
Doctrine of Substantial Performance When It Comes to Payment
July 27, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent non-construction case touches upon the doctrine of substantial performance when it comes to payment. In this case, a club was to make two payments to secure a rapper’s attendance. The first payment was made. The second payment was made but was a few hundred dollars short of the agreed amount. The rapper did not show up. The club claimed it substantially performed its obligations. At first glance, the argument makes sense because the second payment fell only a few hundred dollars short. But that wasn’t the case when it comes to pre-commencement payment obligations:
Substantial performance applies only when the variance from the contract terms “is inadvertent or unintentional and unimportant so that the work actually performed is substantially what was called for in the contract.” However, when one party agrees to pay the other on or before a specific date, time is of the essence, and the payor is required to pay the payee on or before that date. “There is almost always no such thing as ‘substantial performance’ of payment between commercial parties when the duty is simply the general one to pay. Payment is either made in the amount and on the date due, or it is not.”
Big Gate Records, LLC v. Washington, 51 Fla.L.Weekly D1281a (Fla. 2nd DCA 2026) (internal citations omitted).
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Colorado’s New Mechanics’ Lien Protections: What S.B. 26-074 Means for Your Next Project
October 27, 2026 —
Maria Conversa - Snell & WilmerStarting August 12, 2026, Colorado’s mechanics’ lien statute underwent its most significant update in years. Colorado’s General Assembly enacted Senate Bill 26-074 on April 6, 2026, and the new law directly addressed a problem that has plagued contractors and subcontractors for decades. For years, a contractor and subcontractor who filed a lien for the full amount it believed was due — particularly when that amount included disputed costs, delay damages, or lost productivity — risked triggering the “excessive lien” penalty. That penalty could force the claimant to forfeit its lien rights entirely and pay the other side’s attorney fees. The new law expands the categories of costs to be claimed by good-faith lien claimants, while still protecting against truly abusive filings. General contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, owners, and lenders all need to understand these changes.
What the Bill Changed
1. Lien Value May Include Disputed Amounts
The bill amends the core lien statute to insert the phrase “whether disputed or undisputed” into the description of lienable value. Prior law referenced only “the value” of labor, services, or materials furnished. The new text confirms that a lien can attach for amounts the parties still dispute. A claimant no longer needs the owner or general contractor to agree on the amount before filing.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Maria Conversa, Snell & WilmerMs. Conversa may be contacted at
mconversa@swlaw.com
The Construction Defect Litigation Podcast: Navigating Multi-Party Construction Defect Litigation
September 08, 2026 —
Ivette Kincaid & Thomas McCarrick - Kahana FeldKahana Feld Construction Defect Practice Group Chair Ivette Kincaid and attorney Thomas McCarrick recently joined the Construction Defect Litigation podcast to discuss the challenges—and strategies—behind complex construction defect matters involving multiple stakeholders.
Drawing on their experience, Ivette and Thomas explore practical approaches to:
- Identifying key parties and understanding how claims and crossclaims develop
- Working with experts to evaluate defects, causation and damages
- Managing procedural challenges, including scheduling, document management and depositions
- Applying thoughtful case management strategies to position complex matters for successful resolution
Reprinted courtesy of
Ivette Kincaid, Kahana Feld and
Thomas McCarrick, Kahana Feld
Ms. Kincaid may be contacted at ikincaid@kahanafeld.com
Mr. McCarrick may be contacted at tmccarrick@kahanafeld.com
Read the full story...
Alexander Hopkins Authors Law360 Article on Wisconsin Supreme Court Coverage Decision
October 06, 2026 —
Alexander G. Hopkins - SDV FenchurchAlexander Hopkins recently authored an Expert Analysis for Law360 examining a recent Wisconsin Supreme Court decision addressing coverage for water damage arising from alleged construction defects.
In “Wis. Coverage Ruling Rejects Strict Ensuing Loss Test,” Alex explores the relationship between construction defect exclusions and ensuing loss provisions, and what the decision means for policyholders seeking coverage when an excluded condition contributes to subsequent damage.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Alexander G. Hopkins, SDV FenchurchMr. Hopkins may be contacted at
alexander.hopkins@sdvfenchurch.us
Sometimes a General Damages Assessment is Enough. . .
July 06, 2026 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIt has been a while since I last posted here at
Construction Law Musings. Life, law practice, and “blogger’s block” have taken their toll on the posting schedule. Hopefully this will be one of several upcoming posts now that the litigation schedule has lightened a bit over the summer.
Today’s post is about damages. Specifically damage to a homeowner’s roof and her legal damages therefor. That last is of course a sentence that only a
construction attorney (or other litigator) could possibly craft and have it make sense. Now, on with the case. . .In
Hardesty Construction, Inc. v. Weedon, the facts are as follows:
Ms. Weedon had hail damage to the roof of her home. She hired Hardesty Construction to repair and replace the roof. After the first roof was installed and failed inspection, a second roof was installed. The issue was that the first roof had a warranty and the second roof, installed similarly to the first (and allegedly with the same construction issues according to Ms. Weedon’s expert), was not provided with the promised warranty. As one may expect, Weedon sued Hardesty and Hardesty Construction for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract. At trial, Weedon testified, without objection, that her home was worth $40,000 less because of Hardesty Construction’s work, which was based partially on quotes Weedon received to fix the roof. The Circuit Court granted Hardesty Construction’s motion to strike Weedon’s fraudulent inducement claim, but not her other claims. A jury awarded Weedon $30,253.30 on her breach of contract claim. Hardesty Construction appealed, arguing the Circuit Court erred in (a) allowing the jury to consider Weedon’s valuation testimony because it was not based on her personal knowledge and (b) denying its motion to strike based on insufficient evidence as to damages. Weedon assigned cross-error in the Circuit Court’s decision to grant the motion to strike her fraudulent inducement claim against Samual Hardesty.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
