Differing Site Conditions Claim Requires a Misrepresentation
May 14, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIf you are entertaining a
differing site conditions claim, consider this Third District Court of Appeals case from the mid-90s.
In Hendry Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 648 So.2d 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), a contractor was hired by Dade County to demolish the old Rickenbacker Causeway in Miami. The original 1941 plans of the causeway were made available to contractors. The lowest bidding contractor that was awarded the project based its bid “on its conclusion that the pilings supporting the old bridge were made of concrete.” Hendry, supra at 141. The contractor based this conclusion on the original plans, its visual observation, and experience.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
My Current Love-Hate Relationship with AI
June 08, 2026 —
Garret D. Murai - California Construction Law BlogIt’s early in the relationship, I know. But still, there are some things that bug me. Yet, I also know that it’s a relationship in which leaving is not an option, and even if I could, it’s not to the point where it’s so bad that I would do so. So, if you would, let me gripe a bit.
While there’s been much discussion about AI and, at least in my neck of the woods, a fair amount of discussion about how lawyers can, should, and must use AI or risk becoming discarded into the dustbin of history, much less has been written about clients’ use of AI.
Increasingly, I’ve gotten the sense that my clients are using AI. For example, I had a client ask for confirmation that if he disagreed with an administrative decision that he could file a writ of mandate, and if so, whether that deadline was 30, 60 or 90 days after the administrative decision. The answer to the first question was yes, and as to the second question, the answer was 90 days. This was from a client who, smart as he is, probably didn’t know this off the top of his head.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret D. Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.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...
GRSM Secures Complete Judgment for Defense in Years-Long Dispute Spanning Multiple Venues
June 22, 2026 —
Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani’s Hartford, Connecticut, and Dallas offices recently secured a complete defense judgment and recovery of attorney’s fees and costs in an arbitration on behalf of a longtime client, concluding a dispute that lasted several years and traversed multiple jurisdictions.
The dispute initially arose in Texas state court, and almost immediately, the claimant began pursuing the matter aggressively, a pattern that continued until the day judgment was entered in GRSM’s client’s favor. GRSM’s team mounted a strong defense, achieving an early success in compelling mandatory arbitration.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Louisiana Legislature Enacts Act 932 – Significant Changes to Insurer Bad-Faith Exposure for Failure to Settle
July 13, 2026 —
Tabitha R. Durbin & Jennifer E. Michel - Lewis BrisboisThe Louisiana Legislature has enacted Act 932 (formerly House Bill 1162), which became law this week without the Governor's signature pursuant to the Louisiana Constitution, after expiration of the applicable constitutional review period. Act 932 makes several important amendments to Louisiana's insurer bad-faith statute and appears intended, at least in part, to address issues arising from the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision in Kelly v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 169 So.3d 328 (La. 2015). The Act also makes changes regarding claim payments involving licensed contractors. The Act takes effect on August 1, 2026.
Key Takeaways
Act 932:
- Limits certain bad-faith causes of action (bad faith failure to settle) involving personal injury and bodily injury claims where good-faith disputes exist or where an insurer has not been afforded sufficient opportunity to respond to a settlement demand.
- Requires insurers and adjusters to verify a contractor's Louisiana license status before issuing claim payments when a contractor is named as a payee on a check for repair or restoration of immovable property.
- Creates a statutory safe harbor protecting insurers from bad-faith penalties and attorney fees when payment delays result from an inability to verify a contractor's license, provided specified documentation and notice requirements are met.
Reprinted courtesy of
Tabitha R. Durbin, Lewis Brisbois and
Jennifer E. Michel, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Durbin may be contacted at Tabitha.Durbin@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Michel may be contacted at Jenny.Michel@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the full story...
Ball Janik LLP Welcomes Construction Defect Attorney and U.S. Air Force Veteran Jake Scott to its Fort Lauderdale Office
June 02, 2026 —
Ball Janik LLPBall Janik LLP, a leading construction defect and insurance recovery law firm, has welcomed Jake Scott as an associate in its Fort Lauderdale office. Scott joins the Construction Defect Practice Group, bringing experience across construction litigation that includes construction defect, contract dispute, and negligence matters, along with a track record of representing construction professionals through depositions, court appearances, and trial preparation to support the firm's steady growth and client service statewide.
"We're excited to welcome Jake Scott to our Fort Lauderdale office and Construction Defect Practice Group," said James C. Prichard, Managing Partner at Ball Janik LLP. "We look forward to the fresh perspectives and legal solutions he will provide for community associations across South Florida."
Scott is a results-driven attorney dedicated to providing strategic counsel for complex legal challenges. He has experience managing all phases of a case, from early investigation and discovery through trial preparation and settlement negotiations.
Prior to joining Ball Janik, Scott served as an associate attorney in Fort Lauderdale, where he represented clients in construction litigation matters, handled depositions and court appearances, conducted legal research, and drafted pleadings, motions, and briefs. He also worked as an attorney in Tampa, where he represented contractors, subcontractors, and construction firms in defending claims involving construction defects, contractual disputes, and negligence, and worked closely with expert witnesses, engineers, and consultants to develop and present technical evidence.
Scott's experience representing the development and building sides of construction disputes provides a valuable, contrast-driven perspective that supports the strategic evaluation of claims and practical approaches to resolution for Ball Janik's clients.
A proud veteran, Scott served in the United States Air Force for eight years, including roles as an Airspace Control Officer and in Space Systems Operations, supporting safe space flight operations and satellite communications.
Carrying the discipline of airborne operations, Scott worked in the aerospace sector as a Satellite Engineer and Orbital Analyst. He also held a role in the housing sector, supporting marketing and business development initiatives.
Scott received his law degree from Stetson University College of Law. He attended American Military University, where he earned degrees in marketing, business management, and related support services.
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 50-plus attorneys and paralegals in 5 offices in Florida, with centuries of combined experience and capabilities. The firm has been recognized by Chambers USA, U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers®, The Best Lawyers in America©, and Corporate International. Read more here: https://www.balljanik.com.
Old Storm, New Claim: A Fifth Circuit Notice Reminder
November 02, 2026 —
Koorosh Talieh & Torrye Zullo - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogIn a recent decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for a commercial property insurer in a dispute involving the timing of notice for a hail damage claim. In
Gann v. Depositors Insurance Co., No. 25-11291 (5th Cir. Oct. 5, 2026), the policyholder reported a claim after discovering interior water damage in 2022, but its consultant later attributed all of the claimed roof damage to a hailstorm that occurred in 2018. The court concluded that the delay in identifying and reporting the 2018 loss was unreasonable and prejudiced the insurer’s ability to investigate the circumstances of the loss in a timely manner. The decision is an important reminder for policyholders of the need for timely notice under property insurance policies. Such issues can arise, as they did in Gann, even where damage is not immediately apparent, its cause is not initially known, or the cause of loss may implicate a different policy period than the one under which the claim was first made.
The Dispute
The dispute arose from hail damage to the roof of a commercial property in Irving, Texas. After discovering interior water damage, the policyholder reported a claim to the insurer in September 2022, specifying August 9, 2022, as the date of loss. The insurer inspected the property and determined that a portion of the roof had sustained hail-related damage and issued payment.
Reprinted courtesy of
Koorosh Talieh, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and
Torrye Zullo, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Mr. Talieh may be contacted at ktalieh@hunton.com
Ms. Zullo may be contacted at tzullo@hunton.com
Read the full story...
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
