Executive Insights 2026: Leaders in Construction Law
October 06, 2026 —
Construction ExecutiveWhat advice would you give contractors regarding documentation and recordkeeping to better protect themselves during disputes?
Jim Archibald
Partner
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
Disputes over payment, scope and delays are among the biggest risks contractors face. Thorough documentation doesn’t just help win these disputes; it may prevent them from happening at all.
Start with the contract: Every project should begin with a written agreement that clearly defines scope, schedule, payment terms and change-order procedures. Verbal understandings are difficult to enforce.
Track changes in real time: Change orders, change directives, RFIs and scope clarifications should always be documented in writing.
Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the full story...
California Poised for the Most Significant Residential Construction Defect Reforms in Decades
September 01, 2026 —
Thomas D. Fama & Andrew J. Mallon - Wood Smith Henning BermanThe California Legislature is considering legislation that would dramatically alter the landscape of residential construction defect litigation. Assembly Bill 1903, currently pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee, proposes extensive amendments to California's Right to Repair Act (Civil Code sections 895-945.5) that would substantially strengthen procedural protections for builders while narrowing the scope of recoverable construction defect claims.
If enacted, the legislation would affect virtually every stage of a construction defect dispute- from the initial notice of claim through litigation and settlement- and would introduce an entirely new certification process for newly constructed condominium projects. This article details some of the most significant proposed changes.
Higher Burden for Construction Defect Plaintiffs
Perhaps the most consequential change is the bill's modification of the proof required to establish liability. current law generally requires a claimant to demonstrate the residence fails to satisfy one of the statutory performance standards established under the Right to Repair Act. AB1903 would instead require claimants to establish three separate elements:
- A violation of an applicable statutory performance standard;
- The violation caused appreciable, present, non-speculative physical damage to another building component; and
- The violation resulted from the original construction.
Reprinted courtesy of
Thomas D. Fama, Wood Smith Henning Berman and
Andrew J. Mallon, Wood Smith Henning Berman
Mr. Fama may be contacted at tfama@wshblaw.com
Mr. Mallon may be contacted at amallon@wshblaw.com
Read the full story...
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.
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
A Permitting Base Checklist for Data Centers and Power Plants
June 02, 2026 —
Michael S. McDonough, Stephen J. Humes & Stacey C. Wright - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogThere is a lot of talk these days about “license to operate” for data centers, meaning management of the relationships with stakeholders and broader communities concerning both the benefits and adverse consequences of locating a facility in a particular locale. Here, we are speaking of “license to operate” more literally—namely, the legal and regulatory permitting and approval requirements for a privately owned data center whether by itself or colocated with a power generating plant.
Our Base Checklist includes generally and potentially applicable permitting requirements for development and operation, using California as an example. (Taking legal authority Frank Sinatra out of context, “If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere.”) The actual requirements for a given facility would depend, in part, on local law, including planning and zoning laws and plans, and the environment of the site. Just as examples, additional permitting and mitigation requirements might apply if sensitive receptors are located nearby (e.g., noise mitigation for residential dwellings), if sensitive and protected biological resources (e.g., jurisdictional waters and/or protected species) would be impacted, or if the present or former land uses require additional measures (e.g., hazardous materials remediation, mitigation for conversion of prime farmland, or protection of cultural resources). The scope of permit requirements would ultimately be determined by the applicable regulatory agencies and by the lead and responsible agencies under the applicable state environmental land use regime—in our reference case here, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. McDonough, Pillsbury,
Stephen J. Humes, Pillsbury and
Stacey C. Wright, Pillsbury
Mr. McDonough may be contacted at michael.mcdonough@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Humes may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Wright may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com
Read the full story...
Kahana Feld Obtains Favorable Result in High-Exposure NY Premises Liability Case
June 15, 2026 —
Leigh Katz - Kahana FeldKahana Feld partner Leigh Katz obtained a significant victory in a recent matter involving a videotaped alleged trip and fall on the sidewalk in front of the client’s commercial residence. The plaintiff claimed he suffered a knee injury that necessitated surgery, along with other assorted injuries that prevented him from continuing high-level athletic activities. Leigh was able to demonstrate that the fall was staged and received a voluntary discontinuance with prejudice.
At mediation, Leigh emphasized that KF’s expert witness challenged the plaintiff’s claim that the fall was caused by a sidewalk height differential after reviewing the videotape footage and determining the plaintiff’s fall began before his feet made contact with the alleged defect. Based on this analysis, the expert concluded the reported height differential did not initiate the fall, which supported KF’s position that the incident depicted in the video was unrealistic and appeared staged.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Leigh Katz, Kahana FeldMs. Katz may be contacted at
lkatz@kahanafeld.com
Lewis Brisbois Welcomes Clients and Community Leaders to New Garden City Office Opening
July 27, 2026 —
Lewis BrisboisOn July 15, Lewis Brisbois hosted a ribbon-cutting event for its new Garden City office, which opened in April to serve the Long Island community and beyond.
The event was attended by more than 100 people, including Lewis Brisbois attorneys and staff as well as clients, local business and government leaders, Nassau County Supreme Court judges, and members of the press. Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman delivered remarks and cut the ribbon for the office.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
Arizona Supreme Court Clarifies Parties’ Post-Default Conduct Cannot Validate Void Default Orders
August 24, 2026 —
Joseph Kanefield, Ryan P. Hogan & Lilly M. Geiler - Snell & WilmerAfter filing a lawsuit, the first step is always serving process on the opposing party. While that preliminary step sounds basic enough, in McMahan v. Grasshopper, the Arizona Supreme Court recently provided a helpful refresher on the nuances of the service requirement and its importance in litigation for plaintiffs and defendants alike.1
Background
McMahan arose from a hit-and-run where a tractor-trailer collided with safety barricades and injured a construction worker. The construction worker sued the tractor-trailer company, and he attempted to serve the company by leaving a copy of the complaint with the assistant to the company’s statutory agent who forwarded the complaint to the company. The assistant, however, was not authorized to accept service on the company’s behalf. Before the company appeared in the action, the construction worker successfully obtained an entry of default.
Reprinted courtesy of
Joseph Kanefield, Snell & Wilmer,
Ryan P. Hogan, Snell & Wilmer and
Lilly M. Geiler, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Kanefield may be contacted at jkanefield@swlaw.com
Mr. Hogan may be contacted at rhogan@swlaw.com
Ms. Geiler may be contacted at lgeiler@swlaw.com
Read the full story...
