It’s More Than a Feeling: Proving Construction Damages and When You Should Hire an Expert to Help Do It
July 27, 2026 —
Bradley E. Sands & Katie McCracken - ConsensusDocsWhen you win a bid, you might be singing that everything is going your way. Then something goes wrong. The owner hands you defective plans, sits on RFI responses or other critical information, or otherwise upends the work. The costs pile up through no fault of your own. You feel wronged, and you want to be made whole. But a feeling that you got burned is not enough. To recover, that feeling has to become something the law recognizes as damages. So, what are damages, and how do you prove them?
At bottom, contract damages are the money that puts the non-breaching party (i.e., the party that doesn’t breach the contract) in the position it would have occupied had the contract been performed.
Reprinted courtesy of
Bradley E. Sands, Jones Walker LLP and Katie McCracken, Summer Associate, University of Georgia School of Law
Read the full story...Mr. Sands may be contacted at
bsands@joneswalker.com
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...
Voluntary Dismissal of an Indemnity Claim Does Not Make the Subcontractor a “Prevailing Party,” Washington Court of Appeals Holds
September 21, 2026 —
Margarita Kutsin - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCIn
King County v. Walsh Construction Company II, LLC, No. 86503-0-I (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 4, 2025), an unpublished decision from Division I of the Washington Court of Appeals, the Court affirmed the denial of a subcontractor’s request for prevailing-party attorney fees under an indemnity clause after the general contractor voluntarily dismissed its indemnity claims. Because the indemnity claim was no longer live and no determination of fault had occurred, the Court held that the trial court did not err in denying the request. ACS represented Walsh, the general contractor, in securing the denial of the fee request at the trial court that the Court of Appeals affirmed.
A Pass-Through Indemnity Claim That Ended Before Fault Was Decided
The dispute arose out of a public works contract under which King County hired Walsh Construction Company II, LLC (“Walsh”) to construct and install a conveyance pipeline. After the pipeline broke, King County sued Walsh for breach of contract and warranty, expressly identifying both Walsh and its subcontractor, Mears Group Inc., (“Mears”) as responsible. Walsh tendered defense and indemnity to Mears under the subcontract.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Margarita Kutsin, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMs. Kutsin may be contacted at
margarita.kutsin@acslawyers.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
Bad Faith Claim Survives Summary Judgment
June 08, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court denied the insurer’s motion for partial summary judgment on the insured’s bad faith claim, but granted the motion on the insured’s claim for punitive damages. Serbian Orthodox Church v. Brotherhood Mut. Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58234 (S.D. Cal. March 19, 2026).
On February 1, 2023, the Church filed a claim for water damage with Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company (BMIC). The claim was based on rain and wind that caused extensive water intrusion into the Sanctuary, damaging its plaster walls and ceilings and fresco paintings. The claim was assigned to Patrick Hurley. Hurley sent a letter discussing potential bars to coverage and requesting further information and documents from the Church.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Labor Shortages in Construction: Managing Legal and Operational Risks
April 14, 2026 —
Meghan Douris - Construction ExecutiveLabor shortages in the construction industry have become more than a scheduling headache—they are a legal and financial risk multiplier. As contractors scramble to meet deadlines with limited manpower, shortcuts in compliance, safety and subcontractor oversight become more likely. These gaps can expose companies to regulatory penalties, contractual disputes and reputational damage. Understanding how workforce constraints intersect with labor laws and contractual obligations is critical to mitigating the risks and navigating these challenges without compromising compliance or project integrity.
The construction industry has faced persistent workforce challenges for years, but recent trends have intensified the problem. Factors such as an aging workforce, reduced immigration and post-pandemic recovery pressures have left contractors struggling to find skilled labor. According to
Associated Builders and Contractors, the construction workforce shortage surpassed half a million workers in 2024; in the same year,
Associated General Contractors reported 88% of construction companies had difficulty finding qualified workers.
Reprinted courtesy of
Meghan Douris, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the full story...
Hidden Risks Behind Today’s Stadium Construction Boom
July 20, 2026 —
Thomas Strong, Andrew Canning & Marc Gnesin - Construction ExecutiveAfter a decade-plus lull, professional sports leagues, universities and municipalities are once again spending heavily on new
stadiums and major renovations. In the NFL alone, multiple marquee projects are underway or planned, representing more than $10 billion in facilities and mixed-use entertainment districts, rivaling or exceeding the scale of development during the last stadium-build cycle of the early 2000s.
Beneath the excitement of architectural ambition and civic pride lies a risk landscape that has fundamentally changed since the last wave of stadium construction. Teams, cities and contractors that rely on outdated assumptions may find themselves exposed to cost overruns, schedule delays and liabilities that are far more difficult to unwind once construction is underway.
Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the full story...
Seventh Circuit, With an Assist From the Illinois Supreme Court, Finds That “Pollution Exclusion” Bars Coverage For Emissions Allowed Under Regulatory Permit
April 20, 2026 —
Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogIn Griffith Foods Int’l Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 24-1217 & 24-1223 (7th Cir. Mar. 13, 2026), the Seventh Circuit addressed the meaning and scope of a pollution exclusion in a standard-form commercial general liability insurance policy for underlying injuries caused by ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions. The insurance dispute arose out of underlying tort litigation involving bodily injury claims, including cancer, allegedly caused by emissions of ethylene oxide over a 35-year period from 1984 through 2019 by Griffith Foods International and later Sterigenics U.S. The pollution exclusion at issue generally barred coverage for “bodily injury” arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants.
Interpreting similar exclusions, the Illinois Supreme Court has previously held that the standard CGL pollution exclusion bars coverage for bodily injuries caused by traditional environmental pollution (essentially industrial emissions of pollutants), but not by more commonplace emissions (such as carbon monoxide from a residential furnace or excess chlorine in a backyard swimming pool). See American States Insurance Co. v. Koloms, 177 Ill. 2d 473 (Ill. 1997). In Griffith Foods, the District Court initially concluded that the pollution exclusion did not apply because the companies emitted EtO pursuant to a permit issued by the IEPA. The District Court reached this latter conclusion by applying Erie Insurance Exchange v. Imperial Marble Corp., 957 N.E.2d 1214 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011), an Illinois intermediate appellate court decision finding it ambiguous whether a CGL policy’s pollution exclusion barred coverage for emissions authorized by regulatory permit.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Taylor, Traub LiebermanMr. Taylor may be contacted at
jtaylor@tlsslaw.com
