Builders Oppose Senate Housing Bill Over Investor Ban Provision
March 24, 2026 —
Katy O'Donnell - BloombergA powerful group representing the nation’s home builders is coming out against the most significant housing legislation in more than a decade over a provision negotiated by the White House that would restrict institutional investors from purchasing single-family homes.
The builders’ objection could imperil the bill’s chances of becoming law, even as leaders of both parties are desperate to show they are doing something to alleviate voters’
cost-of-living concerns. The Senate voted 90-8 to clear a procedural hurdle for the bill on Wednesday, with a vote on final passage expected early next week.
The inclusion of the investor ban in a broader housing bill was key to getting the White House on board,
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott, a Republican from South Carolina, told reporters Tuesday.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Katy O'Donnell, Bloomberg
USDOT’s DBE Interim Final Rule: How It Affects Current and Out-to-Bid DOT and Airport Projects
June 15, 2026 —
Zachary F. Jacobson - The Construction SeytIn our April 16, 2026 post, we discussed the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Interim Final Rule (IFR) concerning Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) and Airport Concession Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (ACDBE) certification, specifically as it concerns transportation and airport projects in California.
This post addresses a broader question: What does the IFR mean for current and out-to-bid DOT projects operating under pre-existing DBE goals? The answer is that the IFR did more than change who qualifies as a DBE. It also changed how federally funded transportation and airport projects must be handled during the re-evaluation period. This affects active contracts, pending procurements, airport projects, design-build teams, and anyone relying on old assumptions about DBE goals and counting of DBE and ACDBE credit.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Zachary F. Jacobson, Seyfarth Shaw LLPMr. Jacobson may be contacted at
zjacobson@seyfarth.com
Celebrating 29 Years – Thank You for Your Continued Trust!
April 20, 2026 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPFor 29 years, Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP has grown alongside the clients and communities we proudly serve.
What began as a single office in Orange County has evolved into a multi-state firm with 11 locations across five states. Today, we are proud to be supported by a dedicated team of more than 200 attorneys and over 400 employees who work every day to deliver exceptional service and results.
This milestone is not just about where we started; it’s about the people who have helped shape who we are today. Our continued growth reflects the strength of our relationships, the trust of our clients and partners, and the commitment of our team.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Defend Now, Allocate Later? An Unresolved Tension in Colorado Construction Law
August 16, 2026 —
David McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation BlogFor decades, Colorado law has recognized an important distinction between the duty to defend and the duty to indemnify. The former ordinarily arises at the beginning of litigation; the latter generally cannot be determined until the underlying liability is known. That distinction makes intuitive sense. A defense that becomes due only after litigation concludes is not much of a defense.
But Colorado’s construction anti-indemnity statute, C.R.S. § 13-21-111.5(6), raises an interesting question about how that familiar rule operates in construction disputes. The statute expressly regulates contractual obligations not only to indemnify, but also to insure and defend, and it reflects a legislative policy that construction businesses should bear financial responsibility for their own negligence.
Those principles have developed along separate tracks. At some point, a Colorado appellate court may have to decide precisely how they fit together.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
“He Chose…Poorly: How Bad DSC Clauses Lead to Project Doom in the Last Crusade of Construction Risk”
March 10, 2026 —
Curt Martin & Lee Banta - ConsensusDocs“We do not follow maps to buried treasure, and X never, ever marks the spot.” That’s the advice that Indiana Jones offered in the Last Crusade film. But what’s beneath the surface isn’t just important to adventure archaeologists. It has real-world application to our industry, where success depends on the stability of materials below the surface.
The study of geology and soils has ancient roots. Egyptians relied on soil stability for the pyramids; Rome built a continent-wide roadway system utilizing subgrade preparation techniques; Medieval builders implemented a rudimentary foundation pier system; Henri Gautier studied what is now called the “angle of repose” for French retaining walls in the early 18th Century.
Through the 19th Century, contractors bore the risk of the stability of their work, and the attendant peril of unforeseen site conditions. But in the early 20th Century, design trades continued to develop increased understanding of soil and underground conditions. In the 1920’s US federal contracts began employing “differing site conditions” clauses, which provided for cost/time adjustments if subsurface conditions differed from expectations. Industry forms followed the federal policy, and these clauses became almost universally accepted.
Reprinted courtesy of
Curt Martin, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Lee Banta, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@pecklaw.com
Mr. Banta may be contacted at lbanta@pecklaw.com
Read the full story...
Nevada’s Mandatory Nonbinding Arbitration Law for Civil Cases is Going Through Changes
May 14, 2026 —
Brandon Wright & Manuel Gurule - Lewis BrisboisNevada currently operates an expedited litigation program designed to resolve civil disputes with a value up to $50,000 without incurring the “usual” expense of litigating these disputes. Over time, however, the number of civil cases that have been “exempted” from this program based on the claimed damages exceeding $50,000 has grown dramatically. In response, the Nevada Legislature recently enacted a number of rule changes designed to streamline Nevada’s arbitration process and include more cases. Among these changes are increasing the arbitration “cap” from $50,000 to $100,000.
By way of background, the Nevada’s Court Annexed Arbitration program is a mandatory, non-binding program for civil cases in judicial districts that have county populations of 100,000 or more [1]. Nevada’s Court Annexed Arbitration was born out of NRS 38.250, which was enacted in 1991 and went into effect in the summer of 1992. The newly enacted NRS 38.250 was regarded as a way to address the problem of increased court caseloads while promoting judicial economy and efficiency in civil cases having a probable jury award of less than $25,000 [2]. Initially, cases that were automatically exempt from the program included class actions, medical malpractice disputes, divorce proceedings, and other domestic relations matters [3].
Reprinted courtesy of
Brandon Wright, Lewis Brisbois and
Manuel Gurule, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Wright may be contacted at Brandon.Wright@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Gurule may be contacted at Manuel.Gurule@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the full story...
$356 Million Judgement Against Developer for Defective Construction of DC Condominium
August 16, 2026 —
Nicholas D. Cowie - Cowie Law GroupOn July 31, 2026, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia entered a $356,085,513.00 judgment against developers JBG Smith for defective construction and renovation of the Wardman Tower Residential Condominium in Washington, D.C. The case is Wardman Tower Residential Condominium Unit Owners Association v. JBG Smith Properties, et al., No. 2020 CA 004807 B (D.C. Super. Ct.). In a 148-page
Trial Order, the D.C. Superior Court awarded $118,695,171.00 in damages in favor of the condominium association and against the condominium developers, including JBG Smith. The Court trebled those damages pursuant to the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act (“CPPA”) to reach an ultimate judgment of $356,085,513.00. See Cowie Law Group:
DC Condominium Construction Defects: Recovering Attorney’s Fees, Litigation Expenses & Treble Damages Under the Consumer Protection Procedures Act.
Cowie Law Group, P.C. filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Association in 2020. The firm represented the Association throughout years of pretrial discovery and ultimately served as trial counsel with Williams & Connolly LLP during a lengthy bench trial before the Honorable Yvonne Williams. The Cowie Law Group team included attorneys, George A. Bealefeld, III, Albert G. McCarraher, Stanford L. Kimmel, III and Nicholas D. Cowie.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie Law GroupMr. Cowie may be contacted at
ndc@cowielawgroup.com
The Best Lawyers in America® - Ball Janik Attorneys Earn Multiple Recognitions
September 01, 2026 —
Ball Janik LLPOrlando, FL, August 20, 2026 – Ball Janik LLP is pleased to announce that 24 of its attorneys have been recognized in the 2027 editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. The 33rd Best Lawyers edition recognitions are based on peer review and highlight attorneys across a range of practice areas. This recognition underscores the broad experience Ball Janik's attorneys bring to the firm's construction defect practice.
"We're proud to be recognized by Best Lawyers again this year," said James C. Prichard, Managing Partner of Ball Janik LLP. "These honors reflect the expertise and depth of our team, our continued growth across Florida, and our commitment to providing strong counsel to clients in complex construction, insurance recovery, and litigation matters."
Ball Janik attorneys recognized in the 2027 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® include:
Keegan A. Berry — Construction Law
Brian T. Crevasse — Construction Law; Litigation - Construction
Todd Demetriades — Litigation - Construction
Joseph R. Fitos — Construction Law; Litigation - Construction
Megan A. Picataggio — Construction Law
Jon E. Lemole — Construction Law; Litigation - Construction
Salvatore G. Scro — Construction Law
Nicholas B. Vargo — Construction Law; Litigation - Construction
Kelly M. Corcoran — Construction Law
Gabriel Z. Coelho — Construction Law
Evan J. Small — Construction Law; Litigation - Construction
Franchesco Soto — Construction Law; Litigation - Construction
Phillip E. Joseph — Litigation - Construction; Real Estate Law
James C. Prichard — Construction Law
Ball Janik attorneys recognized in the 2027 edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America include:
Nicholas Passantino — Litigation - Construction
Amanda L. Gonzalez — Construction Law; Litigation - Construction
Morgan N. Lester — Litigation - Construction
Chris S. Tribbey — Construction Law
Kyle Bugden — Construction Law; Litigation - Construction
Brian Tannenbaum — Construction Law
Kayla Mosquera — Insurance Law
Natasha L. Biela — Commercial Litigation
Elijah C. Waring, Jr. — Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
Greg K. Demers — Construction Law
About Ball Janik LLP
Ball Janik LLP is a Florida-based law firm offering construction defect, construction law, insurance recovery, and commercial litigation counsel, to its local and national clients. The firm was founded in 1982 and has expanded its capabilities, professionals, and geographic footprint. What started as a small firm focused on real property, land use, and litigation (known then as Ball Janik & Novack) has grown to a team of 70-plus attorneys and paralegals in five offices in Florida, with centuries of combined experience and capabilities. The firm has been recognized by Chambers USA, including for its construction law capabilities in Florida, U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers®, The Best Lawyers in America©, Super Lawyers, and Corporate International. Read more at www.balljanik.com.
