Safeguarding Your Privileged Construction Information With a Clawback Agreement
June 08, 2026 —
Laura Fraher - Construction ExecutiveFor contractors and construction executives, a
dispute that escalates to litigation brings risks that go well beyond the jobsite. When a dispute escalates to litigation, the attorney-client privilege is a critical protection to safeguard your interests. Disclosing privileged material can undermine your litigation position and, in some cases, negatively impact your business. In the construction context, this often includes sensitive communications about project delays, defect investigations, safety incidents or payment disputes—materials that can significantly impact both liability and reputation.
During litigation, the discovery process requires the exchange of documents and data with your adversary. If privileged materials are disclosed to your adversary during discovery you risk the waiver of your privilege, which in plain terms means you lose the protection of the privilege and make the privileged information, and in some cases all other information related to the same subject matter, available to your adversary. It is critical that your attorney take steps to protect against the unintentional disclosure of privileged materials during discovery to avoid a waiver.
Reprinted courtesy of
Laura Fraher, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the full story...Ms. Fraher may be contacted at
lfraher@barclaydamon.com
Surety Liability Is Coextensive with Its Bond Principal
April 14, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent Miller act payment bond case, U.S. f/u/b/o Whitetail General Constructors v. Northcon, Inc., 2026 WL 46671 (D.Mont. 2026), contains a short noteworthy discussion as to a surety’s liability being coextensive with that of its bond principal. If you are bonded, or you are pursuing a bond, you need to appreciate this, which is why this is a noteworthy discussion:
A “surety’s liability on a Miller Act bond must be at least coextensive with the obligations imposed by the Act if the bond is to have its intended effect.” “Therefore, ‘the liability of a surety and its principal on a Miller Act payment bond is coextensive with the contractual liability of the principal only to the extent that it is consistent with the rights and obligations created under the Miller Act.’” In other words, “[w]here a subcontract’s terms are consistent with the Miller Act’s provisions, the surety’s liability on the Miller Act bond is coextensive with the contractual liability of its princip[al].”
“The liability of a surety under the Miller Act is controlled by federal law, rather than state contract law[.]” The court may, however, “look to state law when interpreting contractual provisions” in a Miller Act case.
“[T]he measure of recovery under the Miller Act is generally determined by the terms of the subcontract [or underlying contract].”
Northcon, supra, at *4-5 (internal citations omitted).
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Reducing Rework on Construction Projects Benefits Budget, Schedule and Financial Loss
February 10, 2026 —
Brian Clarke - Construction ExecutiveThe costs of not building it right the first time is statistically staggering—some research suggests up to 20% of the total project costs. This article highlights the costs of re-work, provides a financial worksheet to track the costs of re-work, and a trusted tool to help reduce the impact of re-work.
Typically, when discussing rework, one thinks of the labor and material costs, but there are other costs associated with rework that are less easily quantified:
- Liquidated damages and related legal costs
- Potential for increasing safety incidents associated with rework
- Morale loss due to performing rework
- Loss of previously trained workers due to delays caused by rework
- Reputational loss and the inability to bid on future work
- Challenges of future work to be performed due to schedule delays on a current project
Reprinted courtesy of
Brian Clarke, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Mr. Clarke may be contacted at brianclarke1121@aol.com
Read the full story...
Groundbreaking New York Law Regulates Third-Party Litigation Funding for the First Time
February 02, 2026 —
Nicholas P. Hurzeler - Lewis BrisboisOn December 19, 2025, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed the Consumer Litigation Funding Act (A804-C/S1104A) into law. The new statute takes aim at abusive third-party litigation funding practices statewide.
For years, the unregulated "lawsuit loan" industry has acted as a silent inflator of claim values, forcing plaintiffs to reject reasonable settlement offers in order to pay back exorbitant interest. The new regulatory framework, effective June 17, 2026, introduces caps and transparency measures that may help stabilize settlement negotiations and curb artificially inflated demands. The law does not apply to contracts made before its effective date. Below are some of its most important provisions.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nicholas P. Hurzeler, Lewis BrisboisMr. Hurzeler may be contacted at
Nicholas.Hurzeler@lewisbrisbois.com
Court Ends Trump Shutdown of NY's $5B Empire Wind, Second Offshore Project Revived
February 17, 2026 —
Debra K. Rubin - Engineering News-RecordIn a much-anticipated decision Jan. 15, the federal district court in Washington, D.C., revoked a construction shutdown ordered by the Trump administration against another major East Coast offshore wind project—the $5-billion Empire Wind underway south of New York City. The project's developer, Norway-based Equinor, won a stay and preliminary injunction in response to its lawsuit and one from the state, which aims to direct most of the project's planned 810 MW of power generation to the city's metro area.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-RecordMs. Rubin may be contacted at
rubind@enr.com
2026 Construction Outlook: Dampening Outlook With Some Potential Bright Spots
February 17, 2026 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogAccording to Dodge Construction Network’s Outlook 2026 Ebook, “the construction industry came roaring into 2025” – with large government investments through the Infrastructure Bill and the CHIPS Act (promoting investment in the domestic semiconductor industry), as well as outsized spending on data centers to support cloud and AI technology – but “throttled back significantly” due to “rapid changes to economic and fiscal policies.”
These changes include short-term cost impacts due to tariffs and labor impacts due to the federal government’s immigration crackdown and long-term concerns following enactment of the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBBA) which is anticipated to add $3.4 trillion to the federal deficit over ten years.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, NomosMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
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
Risks of Using an AI Chatbot for Legal Advice: Lessons from United States v. Heppner
April 08, 2026 —
Payne & Fears LLPImagine that you are an executive (who is not a lawyer) and are concerned about what your company plans to do is legal. You could call your lawyer who might bill you for the call. Or, you can ask your AI chatbot, such as Claude or ChatGPT, about the legal risk. The chatbot will likely compliment you on the incisive question, provide you with highly confident answer (that may or may not be right) and will not bill you on an hourly basis.
That is essentially what financial services executive Bradley Heppner did. It did not end well. A federal court recently ruled that Heppner’s chats with the AI tool Claude were not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. That means that the other side (in this case, the federal government) could get access to his chatbot prompts, uploads and responses, and learn a great deal about, for example, whether Heppner knew what he was doing was illegal.
Structural Failure of Precast-Concrete Span Sets Back Sydney Metro JobConstruction Venture Sues LAX for NonpaymentSuing a Local Government in Land Use Cases – Part 2 – Procedural Due ProcessGovernmental Immunity Waived for Independent Contractor - Lopez v. City of Grand JunctionArizona Supreme Court Leaves Limits on Construction Defects UnclearCalifornia’s Skilled and Trained Workforce Requirements: Public Works and AB 3018, What You Need to KnowAdditional Insured is Loss Payee after Hurricane DamageThe Right to Repair Act Isn’t Out for the Count, Yet. Homebuilders Fight BackRepairs Commencing on Defect-Ridden House from Failed State Supreme Court CaseDo Not Pass Go! Duty to Defend in a Professional Services Agreement (law note)Brief Overview of Rights of Unlicensed Contractors in CaliforniaHarmon Towers to Be Demolished without Being FinishedSurprising Dismissal of False Claims Act Case Based on Appointments Clause - What Does It Mean?Construction Reaches Half-Way Point on San Diego's $2.1 Billion Mid-Coast TrolleyA Sample Itinerary to get the Most out of West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect SeminarCalifornia Ranks As Leading State for Green Building in 2022Crime Lab Beset by Ventilation IssuesDepartment of Transportation Revises Its Rules Affecting Environmental Review of Transportation ProjectsConstruction Demand Unsteady, Gains in Some RegionsIs it the End of the Lease-Leaseback Shootouts? Maybe.Priority of Liability Insurance Coverage and Horizontal and Vertical ExhaustionStick to Your Guns on Price and Pricing with Construction ContractsPublic Housing Takes Priority in Biden Spending BillCourt Retained Jurisdiction to Enforce Settlement Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6 Despite Dismissal of ComplaintRenovation Contractors: Be Careful How You Disclose Your ProjectsResidential Contractors, Be Sure to Have these Clauses in Your ContractsBought a New Vacation Home? I’m So SorryBlog Completes Sixteenth YearBill Taylor Co-Authors Chapter in Pennsylvania Construction Law BookCourt of Appeal Puts the “Equity” in Equitable SubrogationColorado’s Housing Crisis: How S.B. 25-131 Could Be a Step in the Right DirectionUS Appeals Court Halts OSHA Vaccine Mandate, Unclear How LongFederal Court Upholds Privity Requirement in Additional Insured Endorsement; Finds No Equitable EstoppelNew York Appellate Court Expands Policyholders’ Ability to Plead and Seek Consequential DamagesWSDOT Excludes Non-Minority Women-Owned DBEs from Participation GoalsCourt Rejects Insurer's Argument That Two Triggers RequiredUnlicensed Contractors Caught in a Sting OperationPA Supreme Court to Rule on Scope of Judges' Credibility DeterminationsJudge Dismisses Suit to Block Construction of Obama CenterCan an Owner Preemptively Avoid a Mechanics Lien?Going Digital in 2019: The Latest Technology for a Bright Future in ConstructionHawaii Supreme Court Paves the Way for Maui Fire Settlement to ProceedLegal Disputes Soar as Poor Information Management Impacts the AEC IndustryCourt Finds Duty To Defend Environmental Claim, But Defense Limited to $100,000Excessive Corrosion Cause of Ohio State Fair Ride AccidentFirst-Party Statutory Bad Faith – 60 Days to Cure Means 60 Days to CureConsensusDOCS Updates its FormsQuick Note: Not In Contract With The Owner? Serve A Notice To Owner.Select the Best Contract Model to Mitigate Risk and Achieve Energy Project SuccessIs There Direct Physical Loss Under A Property Policy When COVID-19 is Present?Changing Your Mind, for Whatever Reason – Terminating a Construction Contract for Convenience in Florida“Wait! Do You Have All Your Ducks in a Row?” Filing of a Certificate of Merit in Conjunction With a Complaint
