RATON NEW MEXICO CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Federal Court Pauses New Mexico PFAS Labeling Rule, but Not Its Bans or Reporting Deadline

October 26, 2026 — Ashleigh K. Myers, Jillian Marullo & Claudia Vetesi - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
As we previously reported, New Mexico adopted novel product labeling requirements that would require manufacturers to display a PFAS flask symbol on covered products. Those requirements are now on hold. A coalition of industry associations led by the American Chemistry Council sued in federal court, arguing that the mandate unconstitutionally compels speech in violation of the First Amendment. On September 16, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the labeling rule while the case, American Chemistry Council v. Kenney, No. 1:26-cv-02130-MIS-SCY, proceeds. The court found the challengers likely to succeed because New Mexico had not shown a reasonable fit between the label and its interests in protecting consumer health and the environment. A Broad Rule Built Around One Symbol New Mexico enacted its PFAS Protection Act in April 2025, joining Maine and Minnesota as the third state to adopt broad reporting requirements and eventual sales restrictions for products containing intentionally added per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Act also authorized the Environmental Improvement Board to require PFAS labels on products. The Board’s implementing rule, which became effective July 1, 2026, specified the exact format of the label and how it had to appear. Reprinted courtesy of Ashleigh K. Myers, Pillsbury, Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury and Claudia Vetesi, Pillsbury Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Vetesi may be contacted at claudia.vetesi@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

---

Could Your Project-Level AI Prompt Become the Other Side’s Smoking Gun?

October 20, 2026 — Ryan Glass - ConsensusDocs
A dispute is brewing on the project. Wanting a quick assessment, the project manager opens ChatGPT, Claude, or another generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) platform. The project manager types the dispute background into the prompt, including concerns, explanations, and a frank discussion of what may have gone wrong on the contractor-side. The AI response identifies potential weaknesses in the contractor’s position, including possible failures to meet contractual obligations. Unhappy with the answer, the project manager starts a new chat, revises the prompt, and tries again. If the dispute escalates to arbitration or litigation, can the owner force the contractor to provide these prompts and the resulting responses? Frustratingly, the answer is: it depends. Courts have reached different conclusions. For now, the safest course is to involve your counsel before using AI to evaluate a demand letter, default notice, or threatened lawsuit, or before using AI to draft dispute-related emails, claim letters, or other communications that contain project-specific facts. Otherwise, what feels like a private conversation may later become key evidence for the opposing party. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ryan Glass, Jones Walker LLC
Mr. Glass may be contacted at rglass@joneswalker.com

---

Executive Insights 2026: Leaders in Construction Law

October 06, 2026 — Construction Executive
What 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...

---

New York Orders Moratorium on Large Data Center Permits

July 27, 2026 — Levi W. Barrett - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Levi W. Barrett, Co-Managing Partner of Peckar & Abramson’s New Jersey office, Co-Chair of the firm’s Construction Contracts & Risk Management team, and Executive Committee Member, was recently quoted in “New York Orders Moratorium on Large Data Center Permits,” an article written by Engineering News-Record (ENR). The article examines New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s executive order temporarily halting state environmental permit reviews for certain large-scale data center projects while regulators develop a comprehensive framework to address the sector’s energy demands, water consumption, environmental impacts, and effects on local communities. It also explores the broader implications of the moratorium for developers, contractors, investors, and other stakeholders, as well as the ongoing debate between economic development, AI-driven infrastructure growth, and environmental and utility ratepayer concerns. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Levi W. Barrett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Barrett may be contacted at lbarrett@pecklaw.com

---

New Florida Law Adds Licensing Risk to Contractor/Subcontractor Payment Disputes

September 29, 2026 — Brett J. Moritz & Ali Heyat - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Effective July 1, 2026, Florida’s newly enacted Section 489.1295 of the Florida Statutes, titled “Prohibition Against Nonpayment,” requires licensed contractors to timely compensate subcontractors and suppliers for labor, services, or materials. Enacted as part of Senate Bill 290 (Ch. 2026-3, Laws of Fla.), the statute adds a new basis for instituting disciplinary proceedings against a contractor’s license if a payment is knowingly or willfully withheld. While this is not a sweeping overhaul of Florida construction payment laws by any means, contractors should be aware that nonpayment disputes with subcontractors and suppliers may carry potential licensing consequences. Reprinted courtesy of Brett J. Moritz, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Ali Heyat, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Moritz may be contacted at bmoritz@pecklaw.com Mr. Heyat may be contacted at aheyat@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

---

Meaningful Change to Contractors License Law Disgorgement Rule of Business and Professions Code Section 7031

November 02, 2026 — Garret Mandel - Porter Law Group
California Business and Professions Code section 7031 has historically imposed a severe and unforgiving penalty on any licensed contractor or subcontractor (“licensee”) performing any construction work after its contractor’s license becomes suspended or is revoked. The penalty for many years has been a prohibition against the licensee bringing an action to collect payment owed and a draconian penalty allowing the party who paid the licensee to recover, or cause the licensee to “disgorge,” any payment the licensee received for the entire contract. This strict penalty could apply to funds received for the entire contract even when the license was suspended or revoked for only a short period of time during the project. This meant, for example, that a licensee who was paid $10 million under a contract for a project that took a year to build could have to disgorge the entire $10 million it received under that contract as a result of performing work while its license was suspended for only a week of the entire project duration. Draconian indeed. A limited statutory substantial-compliance exemption could provide relief, but it requires a court determination that the statutory conditions have been met. Beginning on January 1, 2027, the licensee will be thrown a lifeline on this issue. Under California Senate Bill 342, becoming effective on January 1, 2027, California contractors on qualifying projects will no longer face the same severe penalties – but there are limitations. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Mandel, Porter Law Group
Mr. Mandel may be contacted at gmandel@porterlaw.com

---

Are “Financial Hardship” Damages Recoverable?

June 08, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In a case out of the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, F.O.G., LLC v. Department of the Interior, CBCA 8203, 2026 WL 1191881 (CBCA 2026) a contractor claimed damages that included “financial hardship” damages due to slow payments. The financial hardship damages included personal damages to the contractor’s president and his wife. Are these damages recoverable? Drumroll…The Board ruled that the contractor cannot recover such financial hardship damages. As it relates the personal financial hardship damages, the Board ruled, “Neither [the contractor’s] president nor his wife are a party to this contract, are in privity of contract with [the government], or are the beneficiaries under this contract. [The contractor], therefore, cannot recover for any losses that either one has suffered individually and that [the contractor] claimed in this appeal.” F.O.G., LLC, supra. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

New York Construction: New Rules for Reporting and Cancellation Pay

October 12, 2026 — Meghan Douris & Howard Wexler - The Construction Seyt
Effective December 8, 2026, covered New York construction employers generally must provide up to four hours of reporting pay when an employee reports for a scheduled shift but receives no work, and two hours of pay when a scheduled shift is canceled with less than 12 hours’ notice. Separate requirements apply to certain prevailing-wage construction projects. Before the law takes effect, contractors should identify which projects and employees are covered and make sure their scheduling, payroll, labor, and contract practices are ready. What the New Law Requires New York’s Construction Reporting Pay Act introduces two principal compensation requirements for covered construction employees:

• Reporting pay: An employee who reports for a scheduled shift but is not provided work generally must receive up to four hours of pay.
• Shift-cancellation pay: An employee generally must receive two hours of pay when a scheduled shift is canceled with less than 12 hours’ notice.

Reprinted courtesy of Meghan Douris, Seyfarth and Howard Wexler, Seyfarth Ms. Douris may be contacted at mdouris@seyfarth.com Mr. Wexler may be contacted at hwexler@seyfarth.com Read the full story...

---