Insurer Cannot Raise Issues on Appeal that Were Not Presented to the Trial Court
June 15, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Florida Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment on a collapse claim for the insured, rejecting the insurer’s arguments that were not presented to the trial court. Homeowner’s Choice Prop. & Cas. Ins, Co. v. Oakes, 2026 Fl. App. LEXIS 2086 (Fl. Ct. App. March 18, 2026).
The insured’s ceiling collapsed in the secondary home on the insured’s property. The claim was reported to the insurer, but coverage was denied after its investigation.
The insured sued the insurer for breach of contract. Under the Additional Coverage provisions of the policy, collapse was covered if it was “abrupt.” An abrupt collapse was not covered, however, if exclusions for “Fungi, Wet or Dry Rot” and “faulty, inadequate or defective design, specifications, workmanship, repair, construction, renovation, remodeling, materials or maintenance” applied. The collapse provisions contained no language stating that the coverage granted in the provision was also subject to all the other exclusions in the policy.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
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...
PJM’s Reliability Backstop Procurement Proposal—Fast-Track Capacity to Meet Rising Large-Load Demand
May 12, 2026 —
Stephen J. Humes, Alicia M. McKnight, Jason Drogin Atwood & Andrew H. Jacobs - Gravel2GavelIn January, we discussed the Statement of Principles jointly signed by the National Energy Dominance Council and governors across the mid-Atlantic region—framing accelerating demand (especially from large-scale data centers) as an emergency reliability issue for PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), the nation’s largest power grid operator. That policy signal is now becoming a near-term, accelerated procurement and contracting exercise. On April 8, 2026, PJM notified stakeholders of a critical issue fast path reliability backstop procurement process. PJM subsequently released a request for information (RFI) with respect to a proposed Reliability Backstop Procurement (RBP)—a one-time mechanism intended to attract significant new capacity to address projected reliability shortfalls driven by large-load growth.
RBP compresses what is often a multiyear market and regulatory conversation into a fast-moving set of commercial choices. Developers, large loads, utilities and capital providers should be preparing now for (i) an accelerated bilateral contracting window and (ii) a standardized PJM-led backstop procurement if bilateral deals do not clear enough capacity.
Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen J. Humes, Pillsbury,
Alicia M. McKnight, Pillsbury,
Jason Drogin Atwood, Pillsbury and
Andrew H. Jacobs, Pillsbury
Mr. Humes may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. McKnight may be contacted at alicia.mcknight@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Atwood may be contacted at jason.atwood@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Jacobs may be contacted at andrew.jacobs@pillsburylaw.com
Read the full story...
Jurisdiction Over Foreign Manufacturers in Construction Litigation
May 14, 2026 —
Timothy J. Repass & Miki J. Saito - Wood Smith Henning BermanA recent decision from the Washington Court of Appeals provides important guidance on personal jurisdiction over foreign product manufacturers in construction and infrastructure litigation. In King County v. Aquatherm GmbH, No. 85572-7-I (Wash.Ct. App.Div.I)(unpublished), the court addressed whether a German manufacturer could be sued in Washington for alleged defects in piping used in major public infrastructure projects. The ruling offers a detailed, fact-driven roadmap for how Washington courts evaluate jurisdiction over foreign manufacturers operating through layered distribution networks. It also reflects a broader trend toward focusing on real-world commercial conduct rather than formal corporate structure.
Background of the Case
King County sued after widespread failures in polypropylene piping installed at the King County Correctional Facility. The pipe, manufactured by Aquatherm GmbH in Germany, was marketed, distributed, and installed through a network of U.S.-based entities. Following a six-week trial, the jury returned a verdict exceeding $18 million on claims under the Washington Product Liability Act and Consumer Protection Act. Aquatherm challenged, among other things, the trial court's exercise of personal jurisdiction.
Reprinted courtesy of
Timothy J. Repass, Wood Smith Henning Berman and
Miki J. Saito, Wood Smith Henning Berman
Mr. Repass may be contacted at trepass@wshblaw.com
Ms. Saito may be contacted at msaito@wshblaw.com
Read the full story...
Are Robotic Coworkers Soon a Reality in Construction?
March 24, 2026 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessGeneral-purpose humanoid robots are in the headlines, but is the hype justified? What’s the point of having a robot home assistant when it still needs a “guy behind the curtain” to control it remotely?
Despite the challenges, robots, even those that look like humans, are seriously considered as future coworkers in business environments.
According to the McKinsey report
‘Will embodied AI create robotic coworkers?‘ the idea that AI-powered robots will become general-purpose coworkers is grounded in real technological progress, but not an overnight reality.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
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
Contract Interpretation – Determining What the Contract Requires
March 24, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA good ole dispute on contract interpretation in government contracting. Contract interpretation disputes happen all the time in every jurisdiction under the sun. Think about that. Now, what’s the best way to avoid a contract interpretation dispute? Naturally, invest in the contract language and fully understand the scope of work. Make all of this clear. But, of course, this isn’t foolproof meaning you could still be doing this and you could still find yourself in a contract interpretation dispute. Although, if you are doing this, and being proactive, the contract interpretation disputes should be minimal and more streamlined.
In Liberty Technical Services, LLC v. Department of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 8385, 2026 WL 407656 (CBCA 2026), the dispute centered on whether the government owed the contractor for certain, necessary equipment (largely controllers, but also tanks and pumps) not specified in the contract. The government countered that this should be a non-issue because the contractor always acknowledged it was responsible for furnishing the unspecified, necessary equipment, and the contractor did actually provide the equipment without direction from the government. Each party claimed the contract was unambiguous when construed in context.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Fort Lauderdale Associate Secures Summary Judgment in Rare Premises Liability Win
February 23, 2026 —
Lewis Brisbois NewsroomFort Lauderdale associate Kyle Hollander recently secured a summary judgment victory for his client, Winn-Dixie, in a contested premises liability case.
This was a hotly disputed liability case of water on the floor near an ice cooler with surveillance footage of a customer constantly bringing bags of ice to and from the cooler to the register. The plaintiff unknowingly stepped into the area of dripped melted ice and fell. Kyle successfully argued based on the plaintiff’s own deposition testimony and the surveillance footage that Winn-Dixie didn’t have the requisite actual notice. Additionally, Kyle argued that the brief duration the condition remained on the floor was legally insufficient to establish constructive notice under Florida law. The Court agreed, finding that the evidence would not survive a directed verdict and granting summary judgment in favor of the defense.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
