Applying Jury Verdict Method in Quantifying Damages Due to Defective Specifications
March 31, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesAn older case deals with three important considerations: (1) defective specifications; (2) whether the defective specifications were misleading or misrepresentative; and (3) applying the jury verdict method in quantifying damages.
In Metric Construction Co., Inc. v. U.S., 80 Fed. Cl. 178 (Fed. Cl. 2008), a contractor was contracted by the federal government to construct a warehouse. There were defects in the structural steel design specifications underlying the standing seam metal roof installed by the contractor and, as a result, the roof system leaked causing damage. The contractor incurred significant costs in repairing the damage, and pursued recovery of these costs against the government. The contractor claimed the structural steel design serving as the framework for the metal roof was defective and misleading and caused the leaks.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
High-Rise Design and Construction: Then, Now, and Next
March 16, 2026 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessThe Empire State Building was built in 14 months. Since 2010, the average completion time for a 200-meter-plus building has increased from
4.3 to 5.8 years. Buildings have become more complex, and there's more regulation than in the 1930s. Still, there are ways to make high-rise construction more efficient.
An Unlikely Benchmark From 1930
When construction began on the Empire State Building on March 17, 1930, the world was in the midst of the Great Depression. That turned out to be an advantage. Contractors Starrett Brothers & Eken had access to a vast, motivated workforce, peaking at 3,439 workers on a single day in August 1930.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
Meet BWB&O’s Super Lawyers Rising Stars in Colorado!
April 08, 2026 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLPBremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is thrilled to share that Partner
Devin Brunson and Associate
Melissa Youngpeter have been named to the Super Lawyers 2026 Colorado Rising Stars list. This recognition reflects their exceptional work in Personal Injury and Civil Litigation.
SUPER LAWYERS RISING STARS
Devin Brunson: 2024-2026
Melissa Youngpeter: 2026
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP
A Customized Approach to Data Center Construction
June 29, 2026 —
James P. Bobotek, Arielle L. Murphy & Robert A. James - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogData center construction projects are, to put it mildly, distinct. They differ from traditional construction in a host of manners, and are particularly distinctive because the value of the facility depends on unique measures of performance. A center that cannot meet uptime, cooling, redundancy or connectivity standards will not achieve its mission, whether or not the structure itself meets standard industry contract-form “substantial completion” or “mechanical completion” definitions.
Owners, developers, lenders, operators and hyperscalers—especially hyperscalers!—want it all. They seek favorable and stable pricing, accelerated delivery and sophisticated components, all of which are evolving in “real project time.” Standard construction contract forms deserve extensive modifications to align clauses with expectations, with a heightened focus on systems integration, commissioning, and allocation of special risks. This article details customized considerations for drafting, negotiating and administering data center design and construction agreements.
Reprinted courtesy of
James P. Bobotek, Pillsbury,
Arielle L. Murphy, Pillsbury and
Robert A. James, Pillsbury
Mr. Bobotek may be contacted at james.bobotek@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Murphy may be contacted at arielle.murphy@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com
Read the full story...
“He Chose…Poorly: How Bad DSC Clauses Lead to Project Doom in the Last Crusade of Construction Risk”
March 10, 2026 —
Curt Martin & Lee Banta - ConsensusDocs“We do not follow maps to buried treasure, and X never, ever marks the spot.” That’s the advice that Indiana Jones offered in the Last Crusade film. But what’s beneath the surface isn’t just important to adventure archaeologists. It has real-world application to our industry, where success depends on the stability of materials below the surface.
The study of geology and soils has ancient roots. Egyptians relied on soil stability for the pyramids; Rome built a continent-wide roadway system utilizing subgrade preparation techniques; Medieval builders implemented a rudimentary foundation pier system; Henri Gautier studied what is now called the “angle of repose” for French retaining walls in the early 18th Century.
Through the 19th Century, contractors bore the risk of the stability of their work, and the attendant peril of unforeseen site conditions. But in the early 20th Century, design trades continued to develop increased understanding of soil and underground conditions. In the 1920’s US federal contracts began employing “differing site conditions” clauses, which provided for cost/time adjustments if subsurface conditions differed from expectations. Industry forms followed the federal policy, and these clauses became almost universally accepted.
Reprinted courtesy of
Curt Martin, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Lee Banta, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@pecklaw.com
Mr. Banta may be contacted at lbanta@pecklaw.com
Read the full story...
Construction Contract Negotiation & Drafting: A Practical Checklist (and Where State-Specific Issues Can Surprise You)
April 20, 2026 —
Michelle Cooper - Sheppard Construction and Infrastructure Law BlogConstruction contract negotiation is often treated as a “forms exercise,” especially when the parties start from familiar templates (e.g., AIA forms). In practice, though, the biggest problems tend to arise not from the existence of a form, but from (i) misalignment among the project’s governing documents and participants, (ii) ambiguity in pricing and payment mechanics, and (iii) state-specific statutory requirements that override negotiated terms.
This article includes a practical checklist intended to help owners, developers, and contractors streamline contract negotiations, reduce downstream disputes, and avoid unpleasant surprises during payment administration.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michelle Cooper, SheppardMs. Cooper may be contacted at
mcooper@sheppard.com
Course of Construction Exclusions and the CGL Policy
July 20, 2026 —
Anna M. Perry, Rachel S. Kindseth & Nina Catanzaro - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.I. Course of Construction Exclusions
Course of Construction (“COC”) exclusions are found on General Liability and excess liability policies, typically a wrap-up or project specific policy, and generally exclude “all property damage occurring during the course of construction.” Insurers claim COC exclusions are not problematic because they are intended to prevent an overlap in coverage between the general liability policy and first-party property Builder’s Risk policy. However, because General Liability policies and Builder’s Risk policies provide coverage for different risks, COC exclusions can create a gap in coverage for owners and contractors. Therefore, any exclusion on a wrap-up or project specific policy that limits coverage for property damage liability should be scrutinized, and amendments sought when warranted and commercially achievable, for owners, developers and contractors because General Liability policies do not cover the same risk as that of a Builder’s Risk policy.
General liability policies provide defense and indemnity to the insured(s) for claims made by a third-party against the insured. Broad COC exclusions serve to preclude coverage for all property damage, not just property damage to the insured project. This includes property damage to property other than the insured project, e.g. an adjacent property. On the other hand, Builder’s Risk policies provide first-party property coverage for direct physical loss to the project during the course of construction. The Builder’s Risk policy will not provide coverage for property other than the project itself (e.g., adjacent property) and it will not provide a defense or indemnity in the event the owner of the damaged property brings a claim against a potentially at-fault party.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.,
Rachel S. Kindseth, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Nina Catanzaro, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Perry may be contacted at APerry@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Kindseth may be contacted at rkindseth@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Catanzaro may be contacted at NCatanzaro@sdvlaw.com
Read the full story...
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...
