Consider The Limited Warranty from Your Homebuilder
July 06, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen purchasing a home from a homebuilder, there is an important consideration when it comes to the limited warranty you receive around the time you close on the home. That limited warranty likely includes an arbitration provision requiring you to arbitrate your disputes, such as construction defect claims, against the homebuilder. That arbitration provision will most likely include all claims, including statutory claims (such as a statutory violation of a building code claim), requiring you to arbitrate, as opposed to litigate, your disputes against the homebuilder. This is an important consideration. If the arbitration provision does not allow you to arbitrate all of your claims, and eliminates your rights to legitimate statutory claims, the arbitration provision could be unenforceable.
By way of example, in a residential construction defect dispute, Anderson v. Taylor Morrison of Florida, Inc., 223 So.3d 1088 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017), the appeal turned on whether the arbitration provision in the homebuilder’s limited warranty was valid. The homeowners took possession of their home in 2009. In 2015, the homeowners served a Florida Statutes Chapter 558 notice of construction defects that included a statutory violation of a building code claim under Florida Statute §553.84. The limited warranty included an arbitration provision that specified it was the “exclusive remedy” for all disputes arising out of or related to the warranty or issues with the home and property. When read together with the warranty’s disclaimer that precluded claims not covered by the warranty “whether in contract, tort, or otherwise,” the statutory building code violation claim could not be remedied through arbitration because it fell outside the warranty’s coverage.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Not Every Job Is Worth Winning: Contract Risk Questions Contractors Should Ask Before They Bid
September 29, 2026 —
Jack Mayo - ConsensusDocsIntroduction
Winning the work is not the same as winning the project, at least financially. Consider a contractor that commits to procure custom or long-lead materials before receiving complete construction documents. Depending on the language of the contract, if the final design is altered after those materials have been ordered, the contractor may be left responsible for replacement costs, procurement delays, or both. Alternatively, a subcontractor that accepts a pay-if-paid provision without investigating the owner’s financing, or prematurely waives lien rights, potentially risks nonpayment for properly performed work.
Such concessions can quickly transform an apparently profitable project into a significant financial burden. A successful bid can therefore become an unsuccessful project if the contractor accepts contractual “red flags” without evaluating their consequences and the long-term financial impacts that they may have. The significance of each risk will depend on the project, the parties, the proposed contract, applicable law, and the contractor’s business objectives. Although not comprehensive, this article identifies several key considerations for that process to help mitigate certain risks.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jack Mayo, Jones Walker LLPMr. Mayo may be contacted at
jmayo@joneswalker.com
Italian Court Convicts 32 in Morandi Bridge Collapse Case
August 25, 2026 —
Bryan Gottlieb - Engineering News-RecordFormer Autostrade per l'Italia CEO Giovanni Castellucci was sentenced to 12 years in prison July 16 after an Italian court handed down the first criminal verdicts stemming from the 2018 Morandi Bridge collapse in Genoa that killed 43 people.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bryan Gottlieb, Engineering News-RecordMr. Gottlieb may be contacted at
gottliebb@enr.com
Insured General Contractor Prevails on Motion for Summary Judgment to Establish Builder’s Risk Coverage
July 06, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe general contractor’s motion for partial summary judgment successfully established that damage to footings in place before the policy period was covered after the collapse of a building. Big D Builders, Inc. v. Am Zurich Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72012 (D. Idaho March 31, 2026).
Big D was the general contractor for building a new airplane hangar by erecting a 38,000 square foot structure. Before Big D began construction, the site of the hangar did not contain any pre-existing structures or buildings. Before completion of the hangar, it collapsed and caused extensive property damage.
The builder’s risk policy issued by Zurich covered certain aspects of the construction project for the policy period December 28, 2023, to December 28, 2024. Zurich accepted coverage for most of the damage but not for damage to footings and columns installed prior to the start date of the policy.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
What Prevents Innovation in Construction from Taking Off
September 15, 2026 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessIn construction, we have the knowledge, technology, and innovative people to radically improve our performance, yet we’re still stuck in old ways. Why is that?
I attended an annual gathering for real estate and construction professionals at Rakennustieto Oy, Finland’s leading building information provider. The day before, a half-day seminar was held at the same venue. During both events, we discussed the need for change in the construction sector. Everyone agreed that we need to radically improve how we produce and share information.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Turning Expert Services into Products
July 20, 2026 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessA Finnish engineering, architecture, and project consulting company, AINS Group, recently opened an online store to purchase fixed-price services. The store presents specialist work in a product-like format, with fixed service names, defined scopes, and visible prices, such as a building history report, a zoning plan cost analysis, and a technical preliminary survey for a property transaction.
Is this productization a smart move or a sign that expert services are being commoditized?
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
Turnover Traps for Community Associations: Investigate First, Release Claims Later
April 14, 2026 —
Nicholas B. Vargo - Ball Janik LLPTurnover of a community association from developer control to owner control is a uniquely vulnerable moment. Developers are increasingly presenting Florida condominium and homeowners’ associations with “standard” settlement or release agreements at turnover, often being framed as routine steps to finalize the transition of control. In reality, these agreements can have sweeping consequences, including the release of construction-defect claims before the association has conducted any meaningful independent evaluation.
The developer has years of project knowledge and access to plans, subcontractors, and internal records. The newly elected board is just beginning to organize, obtain documents, and understand the property’s condition. Many defects, especially those involving roofing, waterproofing, windows, or structural components, are latent and not yet visible. Signing a release at this stage means the association is making a binding decision under conditions of uncertainty, without full information, to release all future potential claims.
Over the last few years, there has been a rise in reports of developers offering a packaged deal: they agree to complete certain repairs, often minor punch-list or cosmetic items, and to “forgive” an alleged financial deficit (often around $50,000) supposedly owed by the association from the developer-control period. In exchange, the association is asked to sign a broad release covering all claims, including known and unknown construction defects. To a new HOA board that received their community with limited operating and reserve funds, they are left with a difficult decision to either accept the developer’s offer or assess their owners to pay this alleged debt.
These agreements are occasionally presented through community management companies, which may describe them as “standard” or "routine.” Whether due to misunderstanding or influence from the developer, management companies can unintentionally reinforce the idea that signing is expected. Any recommendation provided to HOAs about whether to sign these releases could open community management to liability down the road. The best practice for both associations and community managers is to refer any agreements to be reviewed by general counsel for the association.
The following two case studies illustrate the real-world consequences:
Case Study One: A newly transitioned board relies on its management company to negotiate with the developer-builder to resolve irrigation issues, pond concerns, and signage deficiencies, along with forgiving an asserted financial shortfall. In exchange, the board signs a broad release covering all claims, including latent defects.
Within a year, several punch-list items remain incomplete, and more serious issues arise. When the association demands completion, the developer delays, prompting the association to seek advice on how to enforce the settlement agreement. The association hires counsel to hold the developer responsible for both the previously agreed-upon items and newly identified construction defects. However, when the association brings claims against the developer, the developer points to the release of all potential construction defects in the community. Thus, the only remaining remedy is limited to enforcement of the specific punch-list terms. The community, still relatively new, has no viable claims against the developer-builder for the construction defects. With warranties expired and the release, the association must fund repairs through special assessments, despite defects that would otherwise have been actionable.
Case Study Two: A community is presented with a similar agreement as above. The management company encourages execution, suggesting it is standard and even telling the board to “name your price.” The developer also pressures the newly elected board to sign.
Instead of signing, the board consults with their attorney. Counsel advises the board not to sign the release and recommends further investigation. Engineers are retained and identify early indicators of broader issues, including stucco cracking, water intrusion, and irrigation deficiencies. Based on this information, the association declines to sign the release. Subsequent evaluation reveals potentially significant construction-defect claims, allowing the community to pursue recovery that would have been lost under the proposed agreement.
These scenarios underscore a fundamental point: signing a release at turnover is not an administrative formality—it is a major legal decision. Board members act in a fiduciary capacity on behalf of their community, and their decisions can bind all current and future owners. At turnover, an association’s right is to investigate and pursue claims. Preserving that right until a full and independent evaluation is completed is not adversarial—it is responsible governance.
Accordingly, associations should retain independent evaluations of the property and consult qualified legal counsel before signing any “standard” agreements, especially ones involving a release of future claims.
Nicholas B. Vargo is a partner in Ball Janik LLP’s Construction Practice Group. He may be reached at nvargo@balljanik.com.
Project Labor Agreements: A New Bid Protest Forum Split
May 14, 2026 —
Dirk D. Haire, David P.J. Timm and Michael J. Brewer - ConsensusDocsAdvertisements often include a disclaimer: “individual results may vary.” Similarly, lawyers are notorious for saying “it depends.” The mandatory Project Labor Agreement (“PLA”) regulations have recently placed into context this adage as it applies to federal contract bid protests, with very different results depending on which forum – the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) versus the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) – different contractors have selected to bring PLA bid protests.
Over the last two years, over 30 protesters have successfully achieved removal of mandatory PLAs from large-scale federal construction contracts based on two landmark bid protest decisions issued by the COFC. Similar challenges to PLAs at the GAO, however, have not been successful in removing PLAs, highlighting an emerging trend that the COFC is often a more effective relief forum than GAO for government construction contractors.
Reprinted courtesy of
Dirk D. Haire, Burr & Forman LLP,
David P.J. Timm, Burr & Forman LLP and
Michael J. Brewer, Burr & Forman LLP
Mr. Haire may be contacted at dhaire@burr.com
Mr. Timm may be contacted at dtimm@burr.com
Mr. Brewer may be contacted at mbrewer@burr.com
Read the full story...
