DOI Finalizes Long-Awaited Modernization of Type A Natural Resource Damage Assessment Regulations
August 03, 2026 —
Amanda G. Halter, Ashleigh K. Myers & Jillian Marullo - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogFor nearly three decades, the U.S. Department of the Interior’s (DOI) simplified “Type A” Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) regulations were available more in theory than in practice, constrained by dated models, narrow geographic applicability and a $100,000 cap that rarely matched the economics of modern environmental claims. DOI has now finalized revisions to the Type A natural resource damages assessment procedures under 43 C.F.R. Part 11 for hazardous substance releases under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA), with the final rule published in the
Federal Register on July 13, 2026 and scheduled to become effective August 12, 2026.
As discussed
previously, DOI has sought to modernize what it views as an “inefficient and inflexible” process and restore the Type A procedure to its intended role as a more streamlined pathway for smaller, less contentious NRD claims. The final rule adopts a $5 million default damages threshold, allows use above that amount if all parties agree, clarifies that Type A may be used in all environments and for all natural resource types, and removes legacy model appendices that had tethered the process to outdated formulas.
Reprinted courtesy of
Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury,
Ashleigh K. Myers, Pillsbury and
Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury
Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com
Read the full story...
Differing Site Conditions Claim Requires a Misrepresentation
May 14, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIf you are entertaining a
differing site conditions claim, consider this Third District Court of Appeals case from the mid-90s.
In Hendry Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 648 So.2d 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), a contractor was hired by Dade County to demolish the old Rickenbacker Causeway in Miami. The original 1941 plans of the causeway were made available to contractors. The lowest bidding contractor that was awarded the project based its bid “on its conclusion that the pilings supporting the old bridge were made of concrete.” Hendry, supra at 141. The contractor based this conclusion on the original plans, its visual observation, and experience.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
A Win for Clarity: What a Recent Federal Court Decision Means for Davis-Bacon Compliance
July 13, 2026 —
Stephen E. Irving - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Following the
Department of Labor’s 2023 Davis-Bacon rule changes, federal construction contractors faced a pressing question: not whether paying prevailing wages is required, but how far those obligations could extend. Could they reach off-site material suppliers? Delivery drivers? Contracts that omitted Davis-Bacon clauses entirely? A recent federal court decision in AGC of America v. US Department of Labor answers these questions in important ways, vacating several disputed provisions and giving contractors greater certainty when pricing, bidding, and administering federal construction projects.
The ruling addresses three aspects of the 2023 regulations that sought to extend Davis-Bacon obligations beyond their traditional scope. By vacating those provisions, the decision creates a more predictable compliance environment and reinforces an important principle: Davis-Bacon enforcement works best when contractors, workers, and regulators operate under clear, objective rules.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen E. Irving, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Mr. Irving may be contacted at
sirving@pecklaw.com
White and Williams LLP Secures $42.4 Million Award for Ventana DBS LLC in Philadelphia Marriott Construction Litigation
July 27, 2026 —
Craig O'Neill, Lindsay Liebman, Kristen Nichols Wright, Zachary Roth & William Taylor - White and WilliamsWhite and Williams LLP's Construction and Surety Practice attorneys secured a significant victory for client Ventana DBS LLC in a complex commercial construction dispute before the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Commerce Division. The trial team, led by Bill Taylor, retired Partner, and Craig O'Neill, Co-Chair of the Construction and Surety Practice Group, with support from Lindsay Liebman, Counsel, Zachary Roth, Partner, Kristen Nichols Wright, Associate, and Sue Ferrante, Legal Secretary, obtained a $42.4 million award on Ventana's claims for unpaid work, delay costs, CASPA penalties and interest, attorneys’ fees and other project-related costs arising from the construction of the Marriott W/Element Hotel Project in Philadelphia.
To achieve this result, the White and Williams team managed an extensive discovery period over the course of four-years of litigation, conducted over sixty depositions, participated in court-ordered mediation and arbitration proceedings, and successfully represented Ventana during a bifurcated trial that spanned over the course of a year.
Reprinted courtesy of
Craig O'Neill, White and Williams,
Lindsay Liebman, White and Williams,
Kristen Nichols Wright, White and Williams,
Zachary Roth, White and Williams and
William Taylor, White and Williams
Mr. O'Neill may be contacted at oneillc@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Liebman may be contacted at liebmanl@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Wright may be contacted at wrightk@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Roth may be contacted at rothz@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at taylorw@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the full story...
U.S. Supreme Court Decision May Negate State Law Requirement to File a Certificate of Merit with the Complaint in a Federal Action Against a Design Professional
April 27, 2026 —
Christopher Olsen & Phillip Boldt - ConsensusDocsTo deter frivolous and unfounded claims against design professionals, states throughout the country have enacted statutes which generally require litigants to furnish a formal certification of merit (“COM”) from a qualified expert or face potential dismissal of their lawsuit. These COM statutes can impose a significant front-end burden on claimants who must pay an expert to review project records, interview the project team, and prepare a formal report before the lawsuit can be filed—often regardless of the amount in controversy. However, in light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in a medical malpractice case, most, if not all of these statutes, may no longer be enforceable in federal court. This article examines the recent decision in Berk v. Choy, 146 S. Ct. 546 (2026), the decisions thus far which have applied Berk to invalidate COM statutes, and other categories of statutes applicable to the construction industry which may face a similar fate.
The U.S. Supreme Court Decision (Berk v. Choy)
In Berk, the plaintiff, Harold Berk, sued a doctor for medical malpractice under Delaware law in Delaware federal court. 146 S. Ct. at 551. Under Del. Code, Tit. 18, § 6853(a)(1), an affidavit of merit (like a COM) must accompany a complaint alleging medical malpractice. Id. Berk failed to include an affidavit of merit with his complaint. Id. at 552. Applying Delaware state law, the federal court dismissed Berk’s medical malpractice claim. Berk appealed to the Third Circuit, arguing that the affidavit of merit required by § 6853(a)(1) is unenforceable in federal court because it is more onerous than the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling, finding § 6853(a)(1) enforceable in federal court.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Olsen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Phillip Boldt, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Olsen may be contacted at colsen@pecklaw.com
Mr. Boldt may be contacted at pboldt@pecklaw.com
Read the full story...
Insurer’s Federal Suit Dismissed in Favor of Insured’s State Suit
April 14, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court granted the insured’s motion to dismiss the insurer’s federal suit for declaratory judgment because the insured filed a more complete action in state court. Church Mut. Ins. Co. v. Elmwood Baptist Church, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 259762 (S.D. W.V. Dec. 16, 2025).
Elmwood purchased a property policy from Church Mutual Insurance Company. After the roof of Elmwood’s property collapsed, the parties disputed the amount Church Mutual owed to Elmwood.
Church Mutual filed suit in federal district court asking for a declaration that the policy was “void ab initio,’ or, alternatively, that Church had fully compensated Elmwood for its loss.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.comCan Businesses Resolve Construction Disputes Outside of Court?Uniformity in Florida’s Construction Bond Laws Brings About Fairness for the IndustryMediation Fails In Federal Lawsuit Seeking Damages From Sureties for Alleged Contract FraudNorth Carolina, Tennessee Prepare to Start Repairing Helene-damaged InterstatesPalm Beach Billionaires’ Fix for Sinking Megamansions: Build BiggerNIST Florida Condo Collapse Probe Develops Dozens of HypothesesMaryland Legislation Prohibits Condominium Developers from Shortening Statute of Limitations to Defeat Unit Owner Construction Defect ClaimsCOVID-19 Business Closure and Continuity Compliance ResourceExploring Architects’ Perspectives on AI: A Survey of Fears and HopesWSHB Ranks No.10 in Law360’s Best of Law Firms for WomenBad Faith Claim Dismissed as Insurer’s Actions Found ReasonableNational Lobbying Firm Opens Colorado Office, Strengthening Construction Defect EffortsEarth Movement Exclusion Bars CoverageInsurer Could Not Rely on Extrinsic Evidence to Circumvent Its Duty to DefendConstruction Litigation Roundup: “I Never Had a Chance”Quick Note: Notice of Contest of Claim Against Payment BondEndorsements Do Not Exclude Coverage for Wrongful Death ClaimContracts and Fraud Don’t Mix (Even for Lawyers!)Southwest Super Lawyers Recognizes 50 Snell & Wilmer Attorneys in 2026 RankingsOSHA: What to Expect in 2022Court Rules that Damage From Squatter’s Fire is Not Excluded as Vandalism or Malicious MischiefInsurer Beware: Failure to Defend Ends with Hefty VerdictNevada’s Home Building Industry can Breathe Easier: No Action on SB250 Leaves Current Attorney’s Fees Provision IntactThe EEOC Is Actively Targeting the Construction IndustryDeveloper Sues TVA After It Halts Nuke Site SaleThe G2G Year in Review: 2021Construction Defect Claim not Barred by Prior ArbitrationRainwater Collecting on Rooftop is not Subject to Policy's Flood SublimitsInterior Designer LicensurePrejudice to Insurer After Late Notice of Hurricane Damage Raises Issue of FactReal Estate & Construction News Round-Up (01/18/23) – Construction Inventory, 3D Printing, and Metaverse ReplicasCalifornia Supreme Court Addresses “Good Faith” Construction Disputes Under Prompt Payment LawsDon’t Get Caught Holding the Bag: Hold the State Liable When General Contractor Fails to Pay on a Public Project.Power Point Presentation on Nautilus v. Lexington CaseMichigan Lawmakers Pass $4.7B Infrastructure Spending BillWinning Construction Disputes: Strategic Negotiation for Better OutcomesWhose Employee is it Anyway?: Federal Court Finds No Coverage for Injured Subcontractor's Claim Based on Modified Employer's Liability ExclusionSubstantial Evidence of Flood Loss is Not a Substitute for Required Proof of LossConstruction Litigation Roundup: “Based on New Information …”Insurer Must Produce Documents After Failing To Show They Are ConfidentialU.S. Homeowners Are Lingering Longer, and the Wait Is Paying OffFederal Magistrate Judge Recommends Rescission of PoliciesCourt Finds No Coverage for Workplace “Prank” With Nail GunThe Creation of San FransokyoLLMs in Construction: Where They Fail and Where They ShineCourt Finds California FAIR Plan UnlawfulAdditional Insured Status Survives Summary Judgment StageOregon Condo Owners Make Construction Defect ClaimGOP, States, Industry Challenge EPA Project Water Impact RuleCoverage Found For Cleanup of Superfund Site Despite Pollution Exclusion="/bhastory.php?cdjs=249923160">
Repeated Use of Defective Fireplace Triggers Duty to Defend Even if Active Fire Does Not Break Out Until After End of Policy PeriodAnother Defect Found on the Bay Bridge: Water LeakageRecovering Time and Costs from Hurricane Helene: Force Majeure Solutions for ContractorsLate Notice Bars Insured’s Claim for Wind DamageLoan Snarl Punishes Spain Builder Backed by Soros, GatesWhite and Williams Earns Tier 1 Rankings from U.S. News "Best Law Firms" 2021Quick Note: Steps to Protect and Avoid the “Misappropriation” of a “Trade Secret”Proposed Law Protecting Tenants Amended: AB 828 UpdatedWant More Transit (and Federal Funding)? Build Housing That Supports ItHunton’s Alice Weeks Selected to the Miami Dade Bar’s Circle of Excellence for Insurance LitigationInsurer Ordered to Participate in AppraisalBHA Sponsors 28th Annual Construction Law Conference in San Antonio, TXThoughts on New Pay if Paid LegislationAssociation Insurance Company v. Carbondale Glen Lot E-8, LLC: Federal Court Reaffirms That There Is No Duty to Defend or Indemnify A Builder For Defective Construction WorkConstruction Defect Leads to Death of WorkerDuty to Defend Broadly Applies to Entire Action; Insured Need Not Apportion Defense Costs, Says Maryland Appeals CourtLien Actions Versus Lien Foreclosure ActionsHurricane Harvey Victims Face New Hurdles In Pursuing Coverage“Pay When Paid” Provisions May Not Be Dead, at Least Not YetHomeowner Alleges Pool Construction Is Defective
