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
Fight for Your Right: Effects of FAR Final Rule on Construction
October 12, 2026 —
Michael Altman - Construction ExecutiveSince the Federal Acquisition Regulation final rule Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects took effect, contractors seeking to compete for federal projects of $35 million or more must “negotiate or become a party to a project labor agreement with one or more labor organizations.” While this requirement significantly reduces competition for covered procurements, contractors may seek to restore competition on individual solicitations by filing a bid protest with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
Bid protests through the COFC become possible once a federal agency posts a solicitation that includes contract provisions mandating a PLA. (In some cases, a presolicitation notice that a PLA mandate will be applied may be sufficient.)
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Altman, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the full story...Mr. Altman may be contacted at
altman@abc.org
White and Williams LLP Secures Trio of Cyber Coverage Wins
May 12, 2026 —
Gabriel Darwick & Sean Elman - White and Williams LLPThree weeks, three jurisdictions, three cyber wins.
White and Williams picked up the first victory on March 9, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, where the court granted summary judgment to their client enforcing a Cyber Crime Loss sublimit. See Perry & Perry Builders, Inc. v. Cowbell Cyber and Obsidian Specialty Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49409 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 9, 2026). In Perry, the insured was deceived into transferring money intended for a vendor to an unintended third party. The insurer acknowledged that the loss was covered and paid the insured the policy’s Cyber Crime Loss sublimit. Discontent with a single sublimit, the insured argued that because it wired the money to the fraudster in separate transfers, it was entitled to a second Cyber Crime Loss sublimit.
Reprinted courtesy of
Gabriel Darwick, White and Williams LLP and
Sean Elman, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Darwick may be contacted at darwickg@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Elman may be contacted at elmans@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the full story...
Insured Does Not Prevail on Summary Judgment Motion Invoking Ensuing Loss Provision
May 05, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court denied the insured’s motion for summary judgment finding genuine issues of fact regarding implication of the policy’s ensuing loss provision. Stella Prop. Dev.. & Event Productions, LLC v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15854 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2026).
Stella owned a cultural center that was insured under a commercial property all-risk policy issued by Auto-Owners. A windstorm with gusts of 65 miles per hour struck the Center causing damage. The Center’s inspector found extensive wind damage on nearly all facets of the roof. Further, the inspector found the existing organic shingles were in “very poor condition” and were “defective, discontinued, and no longer available.” The estimated cost of repairs to the roof was $108,010.52.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Every High-Tech Building Has Many Lifespans
August 16, 2026 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessWhen I worked as an architect, our team designed a laboratory for fuel research. The facility included a large research hall where various boilers and other devices were tested and analyzed. The setup required extensive floor channeling under the thick concrete floor. We suggested building a modular system that would allow flexibility in the future, when requirements would certainly change. They did not want that because of budget constraints.
The high-tech construction trend is spreading. Data centers, semiconductor fabs, battery plants, and life science facilities share one property that sets them apart from ordinary buildings. The technology inside turns over faster than the structure around it. Server generations change every three to five years. Rack densities have risen from 10 or 20 kW to 130 kW and beyond in just a few years.
A high-tech facility is really several buildings with different lifespans inside one envelope, and we keep designing them as if they were one. The failure is not that things become obsolete. It is that we never say when each layer is expected to.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
EPA Expands PFAS Reporting Requirements with Addition of New Chemical to Toxics Release Inventory, Published by Law360
June 08, 2026 —
Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) addition of sodium perfluorohexanesulfonate (PFHxS-Na) to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) introduces new federal reporting requirements for businesses that manufacture, process, or use the chemical. Because reporting obligations apply retroactively to the start of the year, affected facilities must quickly evaluate their compliance and recordkeeping practices.
In a recent Law360 article, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Senior Counsel, Ayodeji Ayolola, explains why PFHxS-Na was automatically added to the TRI, how the EPA’s public reporting system works, and which businesses may be affected by the new rule. The article also touches upon key compliance considerations, including supply chain reviews, reporting thresholds for chemicals of special concern, and preparation for public disclosure requirements.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
That’s a Wrap! Pennsylvania Court Holds Arbitration Clause in Online Agreement Unenforceable
May 14, 2026 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Duffy v. Tatum, 2026 Pa. Super. LEXIS 112, 2026 PA Super 41, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Superior Court) considered whether an arbitration provision contained in the online Terms of Service on the defendant’s website were enforceable. The plaintiff, Daniel Duffy (Duffy), visited the website of defendant, Dolly, Inc. (Dolly), to purchase moving services. Duffy selected the number of movers, items to be moved and the type of vehicle needed. To complete the booking, the website required Duffy to checkmark a box labeled “By checking this box I accept the Dolly Terms of Service.” Duffy did not have to open the link or scroll to the bottom of the agreement before being able to click on the checkmark box. The Terms of Service included an arbitration provision requiring that any dispute related to the moving services to be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the American Arbitration Association. The Terms of Service did not include any statement that the user was waiving the right to a jury trial. The Superior Court found the internet Terms of Service unenforceable.
During the moving process, an accident occurred and injured Duffy. In May 2024, Duffy and his wife sued Dolly and other related entities alleging negligence and loss of consortium. Dolly filed preliminary objections alleging that the parties agreed to alternative dispute resolution. The lower court overruled the preliminary objections, finding that Dolly’s website did not provide reasonably obvious notice of its Terms of Service to Duffy and, as such, Duffy never agreed to waive his constructional right to a jury trial. Dolly filed an appeal to the Superior Court.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and Williams LLPMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
Doctrine of Substantial Performance When It Comes to Payment
July 27, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent non-construction case touches upon the doctrine of substantial performance when it comes to payment. In this case, a club was to make two payments to secure a rapper’s attendance. The first payment was made. The second payment was made but was a few hundred dollars short of the agreed amount. The rapper did not show up. The club claimed it substantially performed its obligations. At first glance, the argument makes sense because the second payment fell only a few hundred dollars short. But that wasn’t the case when it comes to pre-commencement payment obligations:
Substantial performance applies only when the variance from the contract terms “is inadvertent or unintentional and unimportant so that the work actually performed is substantially what was called for in the contract.” However, when one party agrees to pay the other on or before a specific date, time is of the essence, and the payor is required to pay the payee on or before that date. “There is almost always no such thing as ‘substantial performance’ of payment between commercial parties when the duty is simply the general one to pay. Payment is either made in the amount and on the date due, or it is not.”
Big Gate Records, LLC v. Washington, 51 Fla.L.Weekly D1281a (Fla. 2nd DCA 2026) (internal citations omitted).
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
