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.
Seventh Circuit, With an Assist From the Illinois Supreme Court, Finds That “Pollution Exclusion” Bars Coverage For Emissions Allowed Under Regulatory Permit
April 20, 2026 —
Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogIn Griffith Foods Int’l Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 24-1217 & 24-1223 (7th Cir. Mar. 13, 2026), the Seventh Circuit addressed the meaning and scope of a pollution exclusion in a standard-form commercial general liability insurance policy for underlying injuries caused by ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions. The insurance dispute arose out of underlying tort litigation involving bodily injury claims, including cancer, allegedly caused by emissions of ethylene oxide over a 35-year period from 1984 through 2019 by Griffith Foods International and later Sterigenics U.S. The pollution exclusion at issue generally barred coverage for “bodily injury” arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants.
Interpreting similar exclusions, the Illinois Supreme Court has previously held that the standard CGL pollution exclusion bars coverage for bodily injuries caused by traditional environmental pollution (essentially industrial emissions of pollutants), but not by more commonplace emissions (such as carbon monoxide from a residential furnace or excess chlorine in a backyard swimming pool). See American States Insurance Co. v. Koloms, 177 Ill. 2d 473 (Ill. 1997). In Griffith Foods, the District Court initially concluded that the pollution exclusion did not apply because the companies emitted EtO pursuant to a permit issued by the IEPA. The District Court reached this latter conclusion by applying Erie Insurance Exchange v. Imperial Marble Corp., 957 N.E.2d 1214 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011), an Illinois intermediate appellate court decision finding it ambiguous whether a CGL policy’s pollution exclusion barred coverage for emissions authorized by regulatory permit.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Taylor, Traub LiebermanMr. Taylor may be contacted at
jtaylor@tlsslaw.com
Cuomo Bridge Lawsuit Adversaries Weigh Mediated Settlement
July 06, 2026 —
Richard Korman - Engineering News-RecordRival legal teams have reached a critical juncture as they consider a mediated settlement in one of two major payment lawsuits pending between a design-build contracting team and the New York State Thruway Authority over construction of the more than $3-billion Mario M. Cuomo Bridge north of New York City.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Richard Korman, Engineering News-RecordMr. Korman may be contacted at
kormanr@enr.com
Document Everything! Always! No Exceptions! (AKA, Help Your Lawyer Help You!)
April 14, 2026 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North CarolinaI had a case last year in which once again I found myself thinking: if only my client had better documented the verbal agreements, we would have had a much easier time defending his work.
I know this is often easier said than done— you are in the middle of building a project, and you get a call, and you need to keep the project moving. No time for written change directives or a special bulletin. And yet—it is simply amazing to me the number of people who develop “litigation amnesia” about things when a lawsuit is involved.
Your documentation system does not need to be perfect. You can use a simple Field notebook and handwritten notations. A text memo to yourself or, better yet, an email confirmation to the owner/contractor/whoever.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLCMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
Understanding the EPA’s Latest Proposed Drinking Water Contaminant Monitoring Rule, Published in Law360
September 01, 2026 —
Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed Sixth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 6) represents another step in the federal government’s ongoing effort to identify and evaluate emerging contaminants in drinking water. The proposal would require certain public water systems to monitor and report on 30 unregulated drinking water contaminants from 2028 through 2030, while generating occurrence data that could inform future regulation and affect environmental, commercial, litigation and risk assessments.
In an article published by Law360, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Senior Counsel, Ayodeji Ayolola, analyzes the scope and practical implications of UCMR 6, including the contaminants selected, the proposed monitoring requirements for public water systems, and the EPA’s continued focus on PFAS and related organofluorine compounds. The article also touches upon the potential significance of publicly available monitoring data for businesses and property stakeholders.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Kamran Salour Named to Los Angeles Times' 2026 Legal Visionaries List
June 02, 2026 —
Lewis BrisboisOrange County Partner and Data Privacy & Cybersecurity Practice Co-Chair Kamran Salour was named to the Los Angeles Times' 2026 Legal Visionaries list, which honors the most innovative attorneys in Southern California.
In announcing this year's Legal Visionaries, the Times said that Mr. Salour and his co-honorees "distinguish themselves not only through skilleand results but through an unwavering commitment to their clients, their craft and the communities they serve."
"Their paths – shaped by rigorous education, defining cases and purposeful leadership – offer a deeper perspective on what sets true standouts apart," the Times' announcement stated. "Together, these visionaries exemplify a forward-thinking approach to the law, elevating both their profession and the people who depend on it."
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
AI & Digital Tools on Construction Projects: Contract Risks to Address Before Peak Season
April 08, 2026 —
Meghan Douris - The Construction SeytArtificial intelligence and advanced digital tools are no longer experimental on construction projects. In Q1 of 2026, we can already see how they are already influencing schedules, estimates, submittals, safety reporting, and day‑to‑day project documentation. As peak construction season approaches, many teams are accelerating adoption of AI to gain efficiency.
What often lags behind, however, is the contract framework governing how those tools are used—and how their outputs are treated when something goes wrong.
On sophisticated construction projects, that gap can quickly become a dispute driver.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Meghan Douris, Seyfarth Shaw LLPMs. Douris may be contacted at
mdouris@seyfarth.com
How AEC Firms Move AI Beyond the Pilot
July 27, 2026 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessMost AEC firms can run an AI pilot, but few can scale it. Enthusiasm for a first experiment rarely extends beyond the pilot team, leaving the pilot as an isolated win that never changes how the company works. In a recent
AEC Business Podcast episode,
Adeline Chan, CEO and co-founder of Hong Kong-based AAL Innovation, explained why that gap exists and what separates the firms that close it from those that stall.
The Pilot Mindset that Holds Construction Back
Adeline draws a sharp contrast between finance and construction. Banks cannot afford to fall behind their competitors, so they pilot constantly, sometimes running hundreds of proof-of-concept teams in parallel and letting them compete internally to identify the approach that works. The winning concept becomes the standard and scales across the organization, and the return on investment is measured in undeniable numbers.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
