Contract Disputes Act and Jurisdictional Requirements
March 17, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen dealing with a claim on a federal construction project, there are a couple of key background jurisdictional points. These points were briefly highlighted in the recent appeal, Mega Star Logistics Service Co. v. Department of State, CBCA 8232, 2026 WL 253738 (CBCA 2026). Here are the two points.
FIRST, when it comes to jurisdiction, for a board of contract appeals “to exercise jurisdiction over a claim, the CDA [Contract Disputes Act] requires the contractor to submit a written claim to the contracting officer for a COFD [contracting officer final decision], with a subsequent appeal of the COFD or deemed denial if the CO [contracting officer] does not issue a COFD.” Thus, you need to submit a formal claim under the Contract Disputes Act to the contracting officer to get a final decision from the contracting officer (or the contracting officer waiving the final decision by not timely furnishing one). Mega Star Logistics, supra.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Outer Banks Homes Collapsing Is Just a Taste of What’s to Come
December 22, 2025 —
Mark Gongloff - BloombergOn Sept. 20, 2024, a four-bedroom, three-bathroom beach house in Buxton, North Carolina, in the heart of the Outer Banks, sold for
$580,000. On Oct. 28 this year, the house, known as
Mermaid’s Rest, collapsed
into the ocean. It was one of five homes swallowed that day by high waves churned up by an offshore storm.
Few things demonstrate how climate change is already upending lives and fortunes quite like watching somebody’s stately vacation home topple into the drink. But Outer Banks houses like Mermaid’s Rest (a striking example first dug up by the
New York Times but just one of
many such cases), are mere showroom models for the havoc that rising seas are already threatening.
First, let’s get one caveat out of the way: Barrier islands like the Outer Banks are always changing shape, regardless of the climate. Homes built on the shores of such islands have always been at risk of eventually sliding off the edge like a quarter in one of those coin-pusher arcade games.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mark Gongloff, Bloomberg
Scope of Products Requiring Proposition 65 Warnings in California Poised to Grow
February 23, 2026 —
Brian M. Ledger & Chassen B. Palmer - Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniThe scope of products to be drawn into the warning requirements under California’s Proposition 65 law may soon be growing. California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) requested information from the public on the reproductive toxicity of p,p’-bisphenol chemicals. OEHHA is the lead agency for the implementation of Proposition 65, formerly known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxicity Enforcement Act of 1986. OEHHA’s request for information is a step toward regulators classifying all p,p’-bisphenol chemicals as reproductive toxicants under Proposition 65.
California’s Proposition 65
Under Proposition 65, businesses are required to post clear and reasonable warnings before individuals are exposed to chemicals listed by the state of California as carcinogens or reproductive toxicants. To date, California has listed approximately 900 chemicals that fall under Proposition 65 regulation. Businesses may be held liable for up to $2,500 per violation per day. Proposition 65 can be enforced by public prosecutors (e.g., the California attorney general or district attorneys) or by private enforcers (known as “bounty hunters”).
Reprinted courtesy of
Brian M. Ledger, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani and
Chassen B. Palmer, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Mr. Ledger may be contacted at bledger@grsm.com
Mr. Palmer may be contacted at cbpalmer@grsm.com
Read the full story...
California’s Fair Payment Act: What Every Owner, Developer, and Contractor Should Know About SB 440
November 18, 2025 —
Matthew DeVries - Best Practices Construction LawWhile most states have enacted various forms of prompt payment laws for construction projects, California
Senate Bill 440, known as the
Private Works Change Order Fair Payment Act, marks a pivotal change in how payment obligations related to change orders are handled on private construction projects. Signed into law on
October 10, 2025 by Governor Newsom, its implementation will affect owners, developers, contractors, and subcontractors alike. Importantly, it sets clear standards for processing change-order claims, imposing decisive deadlines and remedies.
The Big Picture
SB 440, effective for private contracts beginning on January 1, 2026, establishes a formal claim resolution process for work stemming from change orders on private projects. Key provisions include:
- A contractor or subcontractor may submit a claim (for a time extension or additional compensation) and the owner must provide a written statement within 30 days identifying disputed and undisputed portions.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Matthew DeVries, BuchalterMr. DeVries may be contacted at
mdevries@buchalter.com
Trust, But Verify: Addressing Risk of Non-Payment by Owners
December 08, 2025 —
William Underwood - ConsensusDocsReceiving payment is an important piece of any for-profit business. And construction contractors are no exception. But sometimes payments do not arrive on time (or, worse yet, not at all), even when a contractor has done everything right.
Ensuring that owners have the ability to pay invoices when they become due is an important upfront risk mitigation strategy that can help reduce future risks of non-payment. Although it is not possible to entirely remove this risk, there are options to help reduce it. This article will highlight some of the options to help increase payment security, both before and during the Project, to reduce the risk of non-payment for work that is otherwise properly performed. This article does not cover the entire waterfront of available options, including liens (which could be a separate topic for an entire thesis). But this article nonetheless provides some practical options for consideration to reduce payment risks.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William Underwood, Jones Walker LLPMr. Underwood may be contacted at
wunderwood@joneswalker.com
Always Keep Your Time Limits in Mind—to Know When You Can Sue, and When You Can No Longer Be Sued (Law Note)
December 15, 2025 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North CarolinaAs the calendar year is getting a little long in the tooth, the subject of time becomes top of mind. Time, in litigation, can make or break your ability to sue (or be sued).
A recent blog post by blogger John Caravella
addressing statutes of limitations in New York (6 years) and Florida (5 years) brought to mind the issues that sometimes surprise folks working in North Carolina.
In North Carolina, the
statute of limitations is (generally) set at 3 years for breach of contract matter, including breaches of construction contracts. However, there are always exceptions. The
statute of repose in North Carolina for damages to real property is 6 years. What that means is that if there is a
‘latent defect’ that is not obvious right away, you may still have a claim beyond three years (but not beyond the 6 year repose limit).
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale LiggettMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
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.
Quick Note: Include Key Time Related Facts in Contract to Avoid an Ambiguity
February 17, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen drafting or negotiating a contract, it is important to consider key time-related facts. In other words, if there are important provisions dealing with time, you don’t want to leave them undefined as that can create an ambiguity in the contract.
In a recent case dealing with an investment contract, discussed
here, that’s exactly what happened. The contract allowed investors to exercise an option to return their equity in exchange for a refund of their investment but the contract didn’t contain an expiration date on when the option must be exercised. The investors tried to exercise the option two years later leading to a dispute as to whether that was a “reasonable time.” This is because the lack of clarity regarding this temporal fact led to a latent ambiguity meaning it was a question of fact as to whether the investors exercising the option two years later was reasonable under the circumstances.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
