Texas Adopts New Procedural Rules for Summary Judgment Motions: What You Need To Know
July 13, 2026 —
Conor G. Bateman & Marsha Cotton - Snell & WilmerOn March 1, 2026, sweeping amendments to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a took effect, fundamentally changing how Texas courts handle summary judgment motions — from filing and briefing through disposition. Whether representing a plaintiff or defendant, Texas litigants and attorneys must understand these new rules and their impact on case strategy and timelines. These procedural changes carry particular significance for construction litigants.
Background: The Prior Rule
Texas summary judgment practice has long diverged from the federal model. The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure recognize two types of summary judgment motions: (1) the traditional motion for summary judgment, and (2) the “no-evidence” motion for summary judgment. The no-evidence motion — unique to Texas — may be filed only after adequate time for discovery has passed. No bright-line rule governs that determination; it depends on the unique circumstances of each case.
Reprinted courtesy of
Conor G. Bateman, Snell & Wilmer and
Marsha Cotton, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Bateman may be contacted at cbateman@swlaw.com
Ms. Cotton may be contacted at mcotton@swlaw.com
Read the full story...
Course of Construction Exclusions and the CGL Policy
July 20, 2026 —
Anna M. Perry, Rachel S. Kindseth & Nina Catanzaro - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.I. Course of Construction Exclusions
Course of Construction (“COC”) exclusions are found on General Liability and excess liability policies, typically a wrap-up or project specific policy, and generally exclude “all property damage occurring during the course of construction.” Insurers claim COC exclusions are not problematic because they are intended to prevent an overlap in coverage between the general liability policy and first-party property Builder’s Risk policy. However, because General Liability policies and Builder’s Risk policies provide coverage for different risks, COC exclusions can create a gap in coverage for owners and contractors. Therefore, any exclusion on a wrap-up or project specific policy that limits coverage for property damage liability should be scrutinized, and amendments sought when warranted and commercially achievable, for owners, developers and contractors because General Liability policies do not cover the same risk as that of a Builder’s Risk policy.
General liability policies provide defense and indemnity to the insured(s) for claims made by a third-party against the insured. Broad COC exclusions serve to preclude coverage for all property damage, not just property damage to the insured project. This includes property damage to property other than the insured project, e.g. an adjacent property. On the other hand, Builder’s Risk policies provide first-party property coverage for direct physical loss to the project during the course of construction. The Builder’s Risk policy will not provide coverage for property other than the project itself (e.g., adjacent property) and it will not provide a defense or indemnity in the event the owner of the damaged property brings a claim against a potentially at-fault party.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.,
Rachel S. Kindseth, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Nina Catanzaro, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Perry may be contacted at APerry@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Kindseth may be contacted at rkindseth@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Catanzaro may be contacted at NCatanzaro@sdvlaw.com
Read the full story...
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
Wadsworth v. Regional Rail Partners — Verified Statements of Claim Under the Colorado Public Works Act
August 25, 2026 —
Olivia Barden - Colorado Construction Litigation BlogEditor’s Note: Wadsworth Revisited
In August 2024, following the Colorado Court of Appeals’ decision in Ralph L. Wadsworth Construction Company, LLC v. Regional Rail Partners, we published
Colorado Court of Appeals’ Ruling Highlights Dangers of Excessive Public Works Claims.
At the time, the decision warranted a significant warning to contractors and subcontractors performing public work in Colorado. The Court of Appeals concluded that Wadsworth’s verified statement of claim improperly included unliquidated delay damages and that, because the claim was excessive, Wadsworth forfeited its right to recover the amounts included in the claim. We cautioned contractors to carefully scrutinize verified statements of claim and to avoid including unliquidated damages or amounts that were not yet due and payable.
The Colorado Supreme Court has now reversed that decision.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Olivia Barden, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Sausage-Making Often Relies on the Good Sense of the Chef Rather than the Recipe
June 23, 2026 —
Garret D. Murai - California Construction Law BlogEven for lawyers, the rules governing litigation can get complex and convoluted. Does something need to be filed? What needs to be filed? When is the deadline for filing?
Simple questions with not always with straightforward answers.
This was the case in
R & J Sheet Metal, Inc. v. W.E. O’Neil Construction Co. of California, 111 Cal.App.5th 878 (2025), which involved sheet metal panels lost when they fell into the Port of Long Beach harbor.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret D. Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Surety Requiring Collateral Security Under General Agreement of Indemnity
September 08, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn order to procure bonds (payment and performance bonds), you need to sign a General Agreement of Indemnity (referred to as the “GAI”) with the surety (bonding company). It does not matter the surety issuing the bonds, the terms and conditions in the General Agreement of Indemnity are largely consistent. These terms and conditions are one-sided written in favor of the surety. This is because bonds are not insurance. When a surety issues such bonds, it is doing so under the premise that it will get reimbursed every penny that it incurs relative to its exposure- whether incurred in attorney’s fees, consulting costs, or remediating a default or claim under the applicable bond. The General Agreement of Indemnity is one of the most powerful contracts in construction and is a contract that is not to be taken lightly. It provides the surety numerous rights in the event of a claim.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Chambers USA Recognizes Hunton’s Insurance Coverage Practice in 2026 Guide
June 29, 2026 —
Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogHunton is pleased to announce that its insurance coverage practice was recognized nationally for Insurance: Dispute Resolution – Policyholder in the recently released 2026 Chambers USA guide. The team also received state rankings in Florida (Insurance: Dispute Resolution), Georgia (Insurance), the District of Columbia (Insurance: Policyholder), and Massachusetts (Insurance).
In addition to the insurance team’s group recognition across multiple states, the 2026 guide included individual rankings for
Lorelie “Lorie” S. Masters (USA Nationwide and District of Columbia),
Latosha M. Ellis (District of Columbia),
Michael S. Levine (District of Columbia),
Koorosh “KT” Talieh (District of Columbia),
Walter J. Andrews (Florida),
Andrea DeField (Florida),
Cary D. Steklof (Florida),
Lawrence J. Bracken II (Georgia), and
Geoffrey B. Fehling (Massachusetts).
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Jenny Michel Named Top Lawyer by Acadiana Profile Magazine
June 29, 2026 —
Lewis BrisboisLafayette Managing Partner Jenny Michel has been named to Acadiana Profile magazine’s 2026 Top Lawyers list for Insurance Law. The annual list honors excellence across several practice areas.
To select attorneys for its Top Lawyers list, Acadiana Profile works with a research firm that conducts a peer-review survey of attorneys in the Acadiana, Louisiana region. The attorneys nominate fellow professionals who they consider the best in their field of practice.
Ms. Michel is co-chair of the London Market Group, the Pollution Legal Liability/Environmental Impairment Liability (PLL/EIL) practice, and the Energy, Marine & Power practice. She has worked with London insurers her entire career. Licensed in both Louisiana and Texas, she leads a team of experienced attorneys focused on marine, both traditional and alternate energy, onshore and offshore property, trucking and environmental insurance coverage and bad faith claims, excess monitoring, advice and litigation, both at the trial and appellate levels.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
