Doctrine of Substantial Performance When It Comes to Payment
July 27, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent non-construction case touches upon the doctrine of substantial performance when it comes to payment. In this case, a club was to make two payments to secure a rapper’s attendance. The first payment was made. The second payment was made but was a few hundred dollars short of the agreed amount. The rapper did not show up. The club claimed it substantially performed its obligations. At first glance, the argument makes sense because the second payment fell only a few hundred dollars short. But that wasn’t the case when it comes to pre-commencement payment obligations:
Substantial performance applies only when the variance from the contract terms “is inadvertent or unintentional and unimportant so that the work actually performed is substantially what was called for in the contract.” However, when one party agrees to pay the other on or before a specific date, time is of the essence, and the payor is required to pay the payee on or before that date. “There is almost always no such thing as ‘substantial performance’ of payment between commercial parties when the duty is simply the general one to pay. Payment is either made in the amount and on the date due, or it is not.”
Big Gate Records, LLC v. Washington, 51 Fla.L.Weekly D1281a (Fla. 2nd DCA 2026) (internal citations omitted).
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Insured’s Bad Faith Claim Survives Summary Judgment
July 13, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurer’s motion for partial summary judgment to dispose of the insured’s bad faith claim was unsuccessful. Page v. State Farm Lloyds, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102293 (E.D. Texas March 18, 2026).
Plaintiff insured alleged that hail and a windstorm caused damage to his property. The damage was reported to the defendant insurer. A claims adjuster inspected the property. Defendant then paid plaintiff $24,493.06, which was the total of the estimated damage minus depreciation and the deductible.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
IRMI Expert Commentary: NY Highest Court Confronts Downstream Risk Transfer for Subcontractor Bodily Injury Claims
March 17, 2026 —
Gregory D. Podolak & Alexander G. Hopkins - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Originally published on IRMI.com, copyright 2026 International Risk Management Institute, Inc.
Subcontractor employee bodily injury claims (so-called action over claims) are a staple of construction risk management in the Empire State—so much so that the phrase “labor law” instinctively invites a shudder among the most experienced general contractors. The savvy among them intensely monitor case law developments and the evolution of the insurance market to ensure a cutting-edge, meticulously developed downstream risk transfer plan. And when guidance arrives from an appellate-level court, it’s a moment to take note.
This is one of those moments.
In late 2025, New York’s highest court—the NY Court of Appeals—had the rare opportunity to examine an all-too-routine bodily injury fact pattern and took the opportunity to closely examine the scope of contractual indemnity and its interplay with additional insured coverage in Dibrino v. Rockefeller Center N., Inc., 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 07077, 2025 WL 3670593 (Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2025).
Reprinted courtesy of
Gregory D. Podolak, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Alexander G. Hopkins, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Podolak may be contacted at GPodolak@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Hopkins may be contacted at AHopkins@sdvlaw.com
Read the full story...
Self-Healing Infrastructure Could Pave the Road to the Future
May 05, 2026 —
Allan C. Van Vliet - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogA single hairline crack in a bridge deck can seem insignificant. But left undetected, minor cracks and fissures expand, water seeps in, steel corrodes and repair costs start to increase. This risk multiplies across thousands of miles of aging highways and bridges nationwide.
As infrastructure endures increasing strain from heavier traffic, extreme weather and deferred maintenance, engineers are exploring “self-healing” systems, where streets and bridges are built with materials that can repair themselves. Concrete, asphalt and composites capable of detecting and mending microcracks autonomously are moving from laboratory research to pilot projects. But while emerging technology promises longer-lasting infrastructure, it also raises questions about long-term maintenance, performance guarantees, procurement frameworks and risk allocation.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Allan C. Van Vliet, PillsburyMr. Van Vliet may be contacted at
allan.vanvliet@pillsburylaw.com
Managing Rising Costs and Shifting Legal Risk for Florida High-Rise and Condominium Projects
May 05, 2026 —
Stephen Hauptman - Ball Janik LLPFlorida's construction defect landscape is experiencing a major shift. The convergence of material and labor cost volatility, regulatory tightening, and increasingly complex litigation strategies is forcing associations, developers, and their counsel to rethink how they approach risk management and dispute resolution. For those managing large-scale condo and high-rise projects, the stakes have never been higher.
The Cost Volatility Trap
Construction material prices rose at a "staggering" 12.6% annualized rate during the first two months of 2026, according to
recent industry analysis. Tariff impacts are projected to lead to more increases of 5.4% to 6.8%, depending on property type. For associations facing construction defect claims, this volatility creates a cascading problem: repair scopes defined two years ago are now dramatically underpriced, and damage calculations that appeared reasonable at discovery are obsolete by the time of settlement.
Courts and mediators are increasingly scrutinizing how cost estimates were developed and whether they account for existing market circumstances. Associations must now commission updated repair assessments more frequently, a practice that increases investigation costs but strengthens the credibility of damage claims. Conversely, defendants are weaponizing cost inflation as a defense, arguing that claimed damages are speculative or inflated. The practical result: repair sequencing and phasing strategies have become critical litigation tools. Associations that can demonstrate a rational, cost-effective repair plan tied to current market data are more favorably placed in settlement negotiations.
Regulatory Pressure and Deliberate Timing
Florida's 2026 condo compliance regime has significantly changed the defect claims landscape. Elevated transparency requirements, stricter reserve funding mandates, and tightened building safety inspection protocols mean that associations now face dual pressures: Comply with new regulations while simultaneously handling construction defect exposure.
This regulatory environment is changing investigation and documentation strategy. Associations that delay defect investigation to avoid triggering reserve funding obligations or disclosure requirements are taking on considerable legal risk. Recent case law such as the Third District Court of Appeal's reaffirmation of Chapter 558's pre-suit mediation requirements, underscores Florida's intent to resolve disputes early. Associations that move deliberately and record carefully during the pre-suit phase gain leverage in mediation and reduce the risk of expensive litigation.
Timing also intersects with repair sequencing. Associations must now balance the urgency of compliance inspections against the strategic advantage of phased repairs. Some associations are using compliance deadlines as a forcing mechanism to accelerate settlement discussions, while others are sequencing repairs to demonstrate good-faith remediation efforts before litigation commences.
The Emerging Risk Transfer Challenge
As construction defect claims grow more complex and costly, the traditional risk transfer systems, such as design-build warranties, contractor bonds, and insurance, are proving inadequate. Developers and general contractors are increasingly shifting risk to subcontractors and material suppliers, fragmenting liability and complicating recovery efforts for associations. Permitting and approval friction is also creating new litigation pressure points. Delays in municipal approvals, changes to building code interpretations, and disputes over remedial work compliance continue to spawn collateral claims that go beyond the original defect. Associations must now anticipate not only defect liability but also regulatory compliance disputes with municipalities, creating a dual-front legal challenge.
For large communities, this means reconsidering the entire risk architecture. Insurance carriers are tightening coverage, and traditional indemnification chains are breaking down. Forward-thinking associations are engaging counsel earlier in the development process to negotiate clearer risk allocation provisions and more robust insurance requirements.
Taking a Data-Driven Approach
Managing rising costs and shifting legal risk in Florida's high-rise and condo market requires a more sophisticated, data-driven approach. Associations must commission frequent cost updates, move deliberately through pre-suit investigation and mediation, and challenge traditional assumptions about risk transfer. Developers and their counsel should view regulatory compliance not as a burden but as an opportunity to demonstrate good-faith risk management and strengthen settlement positioning.
The firms and associations that succeed in 2026 will be those that treat cost volatility, regulatory change, and litigation strategy not as separate challenges but as linked elements of a coherent risk management framework.
Stephen Hauptman is special counsel in Ball Janik LLP’s Fort Lauderdale office. He may be reached at shauptman@balljanik.com.
Insured’s Failure to Determine Depreciation When Presenting Claim for Replacement Cost Value
August 16, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s granting of summary judgment to the insurer when the insured submitted replacement cost value of the loss but did not include a determination of depreciation. Kimmel v. Massachusetts Bay Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 16569 (3d Cir. June 9, 2026).
A lightning strike downed a tree on the insured’s property, causing extensive damage to the home. The insured had a homeowner’s policy with Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company (MBIC). MBIC denied the claim, determining that much of the claimed damage already existed and that several policy exclusions otherwise barred coverage. The insured filed suit for breach of contract and bad faith.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Thank You All for 10 Years Straight of VA Super Lawyers
May 05, 2026 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIt is with humility and a sense of accomplishment that I announce that I have been selected for the tenth straight year to the
Virginia Super Lawyers in the Construction Litigation category for 2026. Add this to my recent election to the
Virginia Legal Elite in Construction and I’ve had a pretty good year. As always, I am thrilled to be included on these peer-elected lists. Your confidence in my work is very gratifying.
So without further ado, thank you to my peers and those on the panel at Virginia Super Lawyers for the great honor. I feel quite proud to be part of the
5% of Virginia attorneys that made this list for 2026.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Applying Jury Verdict Method in Quantifying Damages Due to Defective Specifications
March 31, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesAn older case deals with three important considerations: (1) defective specifications; (2) whether the defective specifications were misleading or misrepresentative; and (3) applying the jury verdict method in quantifying damages.
In Metric Construction Co., Inc. v. U.S., 80 Fed. Cl. 178 (Fed. Cl. 2008), a contractor was contracted by the federal government to construct a warehouse. There were defects in the structural steel design specifications underlying the standing seam metal roof installed by the contractor and, as a result, the roof system leaked causing damage. The contractor incurred significant costs in repairing the damage, and pursued recovery of these costs against the government. The contractor claimed the structural steel design serving as the framework for the metal roof was defective and misleading and caused the leaks.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
