Location, Location, Location — But Which One? The Few Words in Your Construction Contract that Pick Where You Fight
June 29, 2026 —
Brad Sands - ConsensusDocsMost professionals know the old real estate line: location, location, location. It turns out to be just as true for construction contracts as it is for property.
Consider a recent case involving a project owner that hired two design firms for a project. When issues arose during construction, the owner sued the design firms in state court in Brazoria County, Texas, pursuant to the forum selection clause in the parties’ contracts. The defendants then removed the case to the federal district court in Galveston, a courthouse in a different county. But the owner wanted the case back in Brazoria County state court. Whether it got its wish came down to two words in the contract: “situated in.” This article is about words like those.
A construction contract’s forum selection clause names the place for the fight nobody plans to have, and where that fight happens can shape how it goes. This article explains why the wording in your forum selection clause deserves careful reading before you sign a construction contract. It is not a deep dive into the mechanics of federal removal jurisdiction, and it is not an academic comparison of the terms “forum” and “venue.” Instead, it is a practical look at how courts actually read these clauses, so the location of a future fight is the one you intended.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brad Sands, Jones Walker, LLPMr. Sands may be contacted at
bsands@joneswalker.com
Function Over Form: Eighth Circuit Narrows Application of Cosmetic Damage Exclusion
October 12, 2026 —
Ali Jamwal - SDV FenchurchIntroduction
In a significant decision for policyholders, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit adopted a narrow interpretation of an exclusion for cosmetic roof damage caused by wind or hail.
[1] The court held that for a cosmetic damage exclusion to apply, an insurer must prove that the roof’s ability to function as a barrier to the elements is not impaired as compared to its functionality prior to the loss or damage.
Background
In April 2022, a hailstorm struck the insured school buildings causing indentations in the buildings’ metal roofs. The hail did not puncture the roofs’ metal, and no leaks were reported. The insurer denied the claim based on the policy’s cosmetic damage exclusion, which precluded coverage for “cosmetic damage to roof surfacing caused by wind and/or hail.” Cosmetic damage was defined as “superficial damage that altered the appearance of the roof surfacing, but such damage does not prevent the roof from continuing to function as a barrier to entrance of the elements to the same extent as it did before.”
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ali Jamwal, SDV FenchurchMr. Jamwal may be contacted at
ali.jamwal@sdvfenchurch.us
GRSM Defeats Class Certification in Precedent-Setting HOA Management Case
September 15, 2026 —
Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Partners Fletcher Alford and Kevin Liu and Associate Jigar Desai secured a favorable outcome on behalf of an HOA management company in a precedent-setting class action before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, obtaining denial of the plaintiff’s motion for class certification and dismissal without prejudice of the three claims at issue.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant received earnings credit payments from a bank in exchange for maintaining HOA deposit accounts and failed to disclose the arrangement to its HOA clients. The plaintiff sought more than $40 million in damages, asserting five claims: (1) breach of contract for failing to act in class members’ best interests by not disclosing the alleged earnings credit arrangement; (2) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) based on alleged violations of California Civil Code §§ 5375, 5375.5, and 5380; (3) breach of fiduciary duty based on the alleged undisclosed arrangement; (4) violation of the UCL for unfair business practices arising from the alleged nondisclosure; and (5) unjust enrichment. The plaintiff sought class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) only as to its second, third, and fourth causes of action.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Unable To Afford an Appellate Bond? You May Be “Indigent” And Qualify for a Discretionary Waiver or Reduction of the Bond Amount.
October 26, 2026 —
Suzanne M. Nicholson - Wilke FleuryOne of the most frequent questions asked when a client is considering taking an appeal from an adverse judgment or order is whether that judgment or order is stayed pending appeal. The answer, not surprisingly, is “it depends.” While the general rule is that perfecting an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court, including enforcement of the judgment or order, there are many, many, exceptions to that rule.
One such exception is a judgment or order for “money or the payment of money.” (CCP § 917.1) In such cases, a bond or undertaking is typically required to stay enforcement. The costs of such security can be significant. If you are using an admitted surety insurer, the amount of security required is 1 1/2 times the amount of the judgment. Obtaining a bond through an admitted surety will require that you have sufficient collateral to secure the bond, and sufficient funds to pay the associated premiums, which generally run between 1% and 3% of the total bond amount, per year. So, if you are appealing from a $1 million judgment, you will likely need $1.5 million in assets as collateral, and up to $30,000 per year for the premium.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Suzanne M. Nicholson, Wilke FleuryMs. Nicholson may be contacted at
snicholson@wilkefleury.com
Safeguarding Your Privileged Construction Information With a Clawback Agreement
June 08, 2026 —
Laura Fraher - Construction ExecutiveFor contractors and construction executives, a
dispute that escalates to litigation brings risks that go well beyond the jobsite. When a dispute escalates to litigation, the attorney-client privilege is a critical protection to safeguard your interests. Disclosing privileged material can undermine your litigation position and, in some cases, negatively impact your business. In the construction context, this often includes sensitive communications about project delays, defect investigations, safety incidents or payment disputes—materials that can significantly impact both liability and reputation.
During litigation, the discovery process requires the exchange of documents and data with your adversary. If privileged materials are disclosed to your adversary during discovery you risk the waiver of your privilege, which in plain terms means you lose the protection of the privilege and make the privileged information, and in some cases all other information related to the same subject matter, available to your adversary. It is critical that your attorney take steps to protect against the unintentional disclosure of privileged materials during discovery to avoid a waiver.
Reprinted courtesy of
Laura Fraher, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the full story...Ms. Fraher may be contacted at
lfraher@barclaydamon.com
Special Counsel Lorelie (Lorie) Masters Appointed Chair of the ABA’s Commission on Women in the Profession
October 06, 2026 —
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLPSpecial counsel Lorelie (Lorie) Masters was recently appointed as the chair of the American Bar Association’s Commission on Women in the Profession. Established in 1987, the Commission was created to assess the status of women in the legal sector and remove barriers to their professional advancement. As chair, Lorie will lead a 12-member roster of commissioners, and a panel of special advisers, dedicated to ensuring equal participation and systemic equity for women lawyers across the justice system and pursuing various studies to identify issues uniquely facing women in the profession, including disparate treatment, training and recruitment, parenting, and other issues. Most recently, the Commission in late July 2026 issued a groundbreaking study about issues affecting the mental health and well-being of women lawyers.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
ACEC Research Institute Report: Real Risk of AI Isn’t Technology. It’s the Org Chart.
September 01, 2026 —
ACEC Research InstituteWASHINGTON (August 19, 2026) – The ACEC Research Institute today released
Leading Through AI Risk: The Enterprise Framework for Engineering Firm Leaders, a new study finding that the most significant risks artificial intelligence poses to engineering firms are organizational rather than technological, and that firms treating AI as an IT initiative are managing the wrong issue.
The report, part of the Institute’s yearslong Firm of the Future initiative, combines an extensive literature review with in-depth interviews of 21 leaders drawn from engineering firms, public infrastructure owners, technology vendors, insurance and legal professionals, licensing and regulatory agencies, and AI consultants.
The report groups AI risk into eight interconnected domains:
- technical reliability and model risk
- professional liability and standard of care risk
- data governance, privacy, and intellectual property risk
- organizational and workforce risk
- ethical, regulatory, and reputational risk
- operational and cybersecurity risk
- financial and business model risk
- strategic leadership and enterprise governance risk
The last serves as the integrating domain through which firms coordinate responsible AI adoption enterprise wide.
The report stresses that firms do not experience these risks one at a time. Weak oversight may create legal liability. Workforce gaps may affect quality assurance. “Understanding these interactions,” the study notes, “is often more important than understanding individual risks independently.”
About the ACEC Research Institute
The ACEC Research Institute is the independent research arm of the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC). Its mission is to fund and deliver research to equip the engineering industry with actionable intelligence on the issues critical to its success. Learn more at www.acecresearchinstitute.org.
From CERCLA to Drinking Water: D.C. Circuit’s PFAS Ruling Enters a Second Regulatory Fight
October 06, 2026 —
Ashleigh K. Myers, Amanda G. Halter & Jillian Marullo - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogOn August 18, 2026, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
upheld EPA’s designation of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund). In Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. EPA, the court rejected challenges to EPA’s interpretation of CERCLA Section 102(a), the adequacy of its notice and comment process, its analysis of costs and benefits, and its decision to proceed despite uncertainty about future response actions and costs.
This decision is already being invoked in a separate D.C. Circuit challenge to EPA’s 2024 PFAS drinking water rule promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Six days after the CERCLA decision, respondent intervenors cited it as supplemental authority in American Water Works Association v. EPA, No. 24-1188, ahead of oral argument scheduled for
September 18, 2026. The Chamber of Commerce decision may assist the respondent intervenors on certain notice and comment and economic analysis arguments, but its significance should not be overstated. The principal challenges to the standards for the four PFAS subject to EPA’s Hazard Index-based maximum contaminant level (MCL) turn on requirements specific to the SDWA, and EPA itself now agrees that those provisions were promulgated through an unlawful process.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ashleigh K. Myers, Pillsbury,
Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury and
Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury
Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com
Read the full story...
