Amazon’s Latest Response to AI Data Center Backlash: $1 Billion
October 20, 2026 —
Matt Day – BloombergAmazon.com Inc.’s latest attempt to address the intensifying blowback to an unprecedented buildout of computing infrastructure: a commitment to spend more than $1 billion over the next five years on initiatives for the communities near its server farms.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Matt Day, Bloomberg
Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (7/8/26) – Data Centers Negotiate Flexibility for Speed, Hotel Deal Activities Focus on Luxury, and DC Sues Apartment Owners
July 20, 2026 —
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIn our latest roundup, rail projects gain steam across the U.S., AI optimizes building operations, a modular approach speeds data center construction, and more!
- Hyperscalers want their data centers online, and utilities want to provide interconnections, but both are still looking for common operating guidelines. (Herman K. Trabish, Construction Dive)
- Contractors are taking advantage of multibillion-dollar train and transit contracts, even as funding challenges create hurdles for project execution. (Matthew Thibault, Construction Dive)
- Although hospitality and leisure M&A deal volume was down 2.5% in the first half of 2026 compared to the prior six months, investors are concentrating on the upper end of the market, including luxury hotels, wellness resorts and gaming, or “data-rich,” platforms. (Noor Adatia, Hotel Dive)
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team
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
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...
Your Construction Contract Won’t Always Save You From a Bad Project Record
November 02, 2026 —
Matthew J. Devries - Best Practices Construction Law BlogConstruction contracts are full of protections. No-damage-for-delay clauses. Consequential damage waivers. Rights to supplement a subcontractor’s work. Broad scheduling provisions. But a recent Tennessee construction case provides an important reminder: the best contract in the world may not save you from bad project facts.
In Commercial Painting Company, Inc. v. The Weitz Company, LLC (TN Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2026), the dispute involved a general contractor and its drywall subcontractor on a multi-building retirement community. The subcontract was originally worth more than $3.2 million, and the parties eventually disagreed about delays, scheduling, supplemental work, backcharges, and unpaid applications for payment. What began as a fairly typical construction dispute became anything but typical. A jury ultimately found that the general contractor had intentionally misrepresented material facts and awarded the subcontractor $3.9 million in punitive damages. (The case has a lengthy procedural history involving multiple appeals, but this post focuses only on the practical lessons from the most recent decision.)
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Matthew J. Devries, BuchalterMr. Devries may be contacted at
mdevries@buchalter.com
Benchmark Litigation Recognizes Andrea DeField Among Nation’s Top Young Litigators
September 08, 2026 —
Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogHunton’s insurance coverage team is proud to celebrate the recognition of
Andrea DeField on
Benchmark Litigation’s 2026 40 & Under List, an annual ranking that highlights the nation’s leading litigators age 40 and under. Andrea was one of only six Hunton lawyers selected and was recognized in the South region. Benchmark Litigation’s 40 & Under List honors attorneys who have distinguished themselves through significant case work, client feedback, and peer review.
This honor reflects Andrea’s reputation as one of the country’s leading policyholder-side insurance recovery litigators and her standing as a trusted advisor to companies facing some of today’s most complex insurance and risk management challenges. As head of Hunton’s cyber insurance practice, Andrea has built her career helping companies manage risk and maximize insurance recovery. Her practice spans the full spectrum of insurance-related issues, from advising clients on contractual risk transfer and insurance program design to representing policyholders in high-stakes coverage and bad faith disputes. She has guided clients through some of the most complex and widely publicized losses in recent years and helps companies recover under a broad range of insurance products, including D&O, professional liability, crime, property, cyber, and general liability policies.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Actual Controversy Without Actual Exhaustion: California Supreme Court Allows Declaratory Relief and Bad Faith Claims Against Excess Insurers
August 24, 2026 —
Kyle A. Rudolph - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.California courts were previously split on the issue of whether an insured may bring declaratory relief claims against excess insurers prior to the exhaustion of underlying insurance. Some California courts held that the actual exhaustion of underlying insurance was necessary, whereas other courts allowed for these types of claims to proceed.[
1]
Recently, the California Supreme Court addressed this split of authority and, in doing so, handed down a significant win for policyholders. In Fox Paine & Company, LLC, et al. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company et al., the Court held that insureds may proceed with bringing forth viable declaratory relief and bad faith claims against excess insurers prior to the exhaustion of underlying insurance.[
2] A summary of the Court’s opinion is provided below.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kyle A. Rudolph, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Rudolph may be contacted at
KRudolph@sdvlaw.com
Insurer Dispenses with Bad Faith Claim on Summary Judgment
June 22, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court granted the insurer’s motion for partial summary judgment because the insured failed to present evidence that the insurer failed to conduct a reasonable investigation. PSY Burger, LLC v. State Farm General Insurance Company, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66991(C.D. Cal. March 20, 2026).
The insured’s commercial property suffered heavy damage from tropical storm Hilary. State Farm denied coverage to repair the damage. The insured sued State Farm alleging breach of contract and bad faith due to an inadequate investigation. Apparently, the insured did not retain an expert to opine on claims handling.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
