Kahana Feld Obtains Favorable Result in High-Exposure NY Premises Liability Case
June 15, 2026 —
Leigh Katz - Kahana FeldKahana Feld partner Leigh Katz obtained a significant victory in a recent matter involving a videotaped alleged trip and fall on the sidewalk in front of the client’s commercial residence. The plaintiff claimed he suffered a knee injury that necessitated surgery, along with other assorted injuries that prevented him from continuing high-level athletic activities. Leigh was able to demonstrate that the fall was staged and received a voluntary discontinuance with prejudice.
At mediation, Leigh emphasized that KF’s expert witness challenged the plaintiff’s claim that the fall was caused by a sidewalk height differential after reviewing the videotape footage and determining the plaintiff’s fall began before his feet made contact with the alleged defect. Based on this analysis, the expert concluded the reported height differential did not initiate the fall, which supported KF’s position that the incident depicted in the video was unrealistic and appeared staged.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Leigh Katz, Kahana FeldMs. Katz may be contacted at
lkatz@kahanafeld.com
That’s a Wrap! Pennsylvania Court Holds Arbitration Clause in Online Agreement Unenforceable
May 14, 2026 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Duffy v. Tatum, 2026 Pa. Super. LEXIS 112, 2026 PA Super 41, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Superior Court) considered whether an arbitration provision contained in the online Terms of Service on the defendant’s website were enforceable. The plaintiff, Daniel Duffy (Duffy), visited the website of defendant, Dolly, Inc. (Dolly), to purchase moving services. Duffy selected the number of movers, items to be moved and the type of vehicle needed. To complete the booking, the website required Duffy to checkmark a box labeled “By checking this box I accept the Dolly Terms of Service.” Duffy did not have to open the link or scroll to the bottom of the agreement before being able to click on the checkmark box. The Terms of Service included an arbitration provision requiring that any dispute related to the moving services to be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the American Arbitration Association. The Terms of Service did not include any statement that the user was waiving the right to a jury trial. The Superior Court found the internet Terms of Service unenforceable.
During the moving process, an accident occurred and injured Duffy. In May 2024, Duffy and his wife sued Dolly and other related entities alleging negligence and loss of consortium. Dolly filed preliminary objections alleging that the parties agreed to alternative dispute resolution. The lower court overruled the preliminary objections, finding that Dolly’s website did not provide reasonably obvious notice of its Terms of Service to Duffy and, as such, Duffy never agreed to waive his constructional right to a jury trial. Dolly filed an appeal to the Superior Court.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and Williams LLPMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
Conditional Payment Bond Consideration-Make Sure There Is Pay-If-Paid Provision
June 29, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIf a general contractor is going to have a conditional payment bond, it needs to ensure it subcontracts contain pay-if-paid or pay-when-paid provisions. This conditional payment language in subcontracts is the general contractor’s defense that it doesn’t have to pay a subcontractor UNTIL owner has paid the general contractor for the subcontractor’s work.
The general contractor (and the surety) can look at the conditional payment bond with the s. 713.245 legend stamped on its face designating the conditional nature of the bond, and assume the conditional structure is locked in against the bond: no payment from the owner, no obligation to the subcontractors under the bond. But what happens when the subcontracts contain no express conditional payment language despite having a valid conditional payment bond?
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Super Lawyers
July 13, 2026 —
Garret D. Murai - California Construction Law BlogNomos LLP Partner Garret Murai has been recognized as a 2026 Northern California Super Lawyer honoree in the area of Construction Litigation. This is the thirteenth consecutive year he has been recognized by Super Lawyers.
Super Lawyers, an annual listing of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and personal achievement, is limited to no more than five percent (5%) of lawyers in a state who are selected through a multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, independent research evaluation and peer reviews by practice area.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret D. Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
“The Superintendent Told Us to Do It:” Why Verbal Approval May Not Be Enough
June 02, 2026 —
Andrew Lintner - Colorado Construction Litigation BlogIn construction defect litigation, one scenario appears repeatedly: a subcontractor installs work in a manner that differs from the plans, specifications, manufacturer instructions, or industry standards after being verbally directed to do so by the general contractor, superintendent, architect, or owner’s representative.
At the time, the decision may seem minor. The project is moving quickly, the field team wants to maintain progress, and nobody wants to stop working over what appears to be a small issue. The subcontractor may trust the superintendent or project manager and assume the conversation will be remembered later if questions arise.
Years later, however, when the project experiences problems, the people involved may deny the conversation occurred, remember it differently, or simply no longer remember the project. Without written documentation, the subcontractor can find itself defending claims for defective work, even though it performed the installation exactly as directed.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Andrew Lintner, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Lintner may be contacted at
alintner@hhmrlaw.com
Achieving Sustainability Through Design Build Delivery: Part II – A Framework for Managing Sustainability Objectives on Private Commercial Construction
October 06, 2026 —
Jennifer Harris, Tiffany Harrod & Joshua Pruett - ConsensusDocsPart I of this series traced the history and development of sustainability in construction and explained why design-build (“DB”) contracting is particularly well suited to achieve sustainability objectives. But selecting DB contracting does not by itself ensure a sustainable outcome. The parties must define their sustainability objectives with precision, establish measurable performance criteria and identify who will measure compliance with the criteria, and also draft contract terms that clearly and fairly allocate the associated responsibilities and risks. Otherwise, the completed project may fall short of its sustainability objectives and expose the parties to claims, disputes, and litigation. Part II offers a non-exhaustive list of practical guidance for addressing these issues and reducing those risks.
This article references the ConsensusDocs 310 Green Building Addendum, in conjunction with an agreement between the Owner and the Design-Builder (e.g., ConsensusDocs 415)
[1],
[2] and AIA Document E204–2017 Sustainable Projects Exhibit,
[3] together with AIA A141,
[4] as its contractual baseline. The five-part framework that follows is a roadmap for allocating sustainability risk between private owners and design-builders: define the requirements, identify hidden performance guarantees, map out the sustainable objective, address third-party certification risk, and track performance against agreed benchmarks.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jennifer Harris, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.,
Tiffany Harrod, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Joshua Pruett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Ms. Harris may be contacted at jharris@pecklaw.com
Ms. Harrod may be contacted at tharrod@pecklaw.com
Mr. Pruett may be contacted at jpruett@pecklaw.com
Read the full story...
GRSM Ranked Among Texas’ 50 Largest Law Firms by Texas Lawyer
August 03, 2026 —
Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani has been recognized byTexas Lawyer in its 2026 Texas 100 ranking, earning the No. 49 spot among the state’s largest law firms by attorney headcount. The annual report spotlights the continued strength of Texas’ legal market, with firms across the state collectively increasing lawyer headcount by 2% in 2025.
“Texas continues to be one of the country’s most thriving legal and business markets, and we are proud to be recognized among the state’s largest law firms,” said Laura De Santos, Regional Oversight Partner for Texas. “Our continued growth shows the confidence our clients place in us, the exceptional talent of our attorneys, and our commitment to delivering seamless, high-quality legal services throughout Texas and across our 50-state platform.”
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Sometimes a General Damages Assessment is Enough. . .
July 06, 2026 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIt has been a while since I last posted here at
Construction Law Musings. Life, law practice, and “blogger’s block” have taken their toll on the posting schedule. Hopefully this will be one of several upcoming posts now that the litigation schedule has lightened a bit over the summer.
Today’s post is about damages. Specifically damage to a homeowner’s roof and her legal damages therefor. That last is of course a sentence that only a
construction attorney (or other litigator) could possibly craft and have it make sense. Now, on with the case. . .In
Hardesty Construction, Inc. v. Weedon, the facts are as follows:
Ms. Weedon had hail damage to the roof of her home. She hired Hardesty Construction to repair and replace the roof. After the first roof was installed and failed inspection, a second roof was installed. The issue was that the first roof had a warranty and the second roof, installed similarly to the first (and allegedly with the same construction issues according to Ms. Weedon’s expert), was not provided with the promised warranty. As one may expect, Weedon sued Hardesty and Hardesty Construction for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract. At trial, Weedon testified, without objection, that her home was worth $40,000 less because of Hardesty Construction’s work, which was based partially on quotes Weedon received to fix the roof. The Circuit Court granted Hardesty Construction’s motion to strike Weedon’s fraudulent inducement claim, but not her other claims. A jury awarded Weedon $30,253.30 on her breach of contract claim. Hardesty Construction appealed, arguing the Circuit Court erred in (a) allowing the jury to consider Weedon’s valuation testimony because it was not based on her personal knowledge and (b) denying its motion to strike based on insufficient evidence as to damages. Weedon assigned cross-error in the Circuit Court’s decision to grant the motion to strike her fraudulent inducement claim against Samual Hardesty.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
