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
Insurer Dispenses with Bad Faith Claim on Summary Judgment
June 22, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court granted the insurer’s motion for partial summary judgment because the insured failed to present evidence that the insurer failed to conduct a reasonable investigation. PSY Burger, LLC v. State Farm General Insurance Company, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66991(C.D. Cal. March 20, 2026).
The insured’s commercial property suffered heavy damage from tropical storm Hilary. State Farm denied coverage to repair the damage. The insured sued State Farm alleging breach of contract and bad faith due to an inadequate investigation. Apparently, the insured did not retain an expert to opine on claims handling.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Chambers USA 2026 Recognizes Multiple Snell & Wilmer Attorneys and Practices
August 11, 2026 —
Snell & WilmerPHOENIX – Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that its attorneys have received 57 individual recognitions in their respective fields, by Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business 2026. These prestigious rankings are driven by independent interviews with clients of the firm and members of the legal community.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Snell & Wilmer
CEO: Power Isn’t the Only Electrical Challenge for AI Data Centers
April 14, 2026 —
Francesco "Frio" Iorio - Engineering News-RecordEveryone knows that data centers are voracious consumers of electricity. In fact, the U.S. is currently scrambling to meet unprecedented levels of power demand not seen since
the early days of electrification and the widespread adoption of air conditioning.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Francesco "Frio" Iorio, Engineering News-RecordENR may be contacted at
enr@enr.com
Alert: Fraudulent Notice of Nonpayment Defense Applies to Payment Bond Claims
April 27, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesUnder Florida’s Lien Law, there’s an affirmative defense or affirmative claim known as a “
fraudulent lien.” The fraudulent lien defense or claim is set out in Florida Statute s. 713.31. This defense also extends to payment bond claims, whether under a private statutory payment bond (Florida Statute s. 713.23) or a public payment bond (Florida Statute s. 255.05), as it pertains to the notice of nonpayment. A notice of nonpayment needs to be served within 90 days from final furnishing to preserve a claimant’s rights against the bond. However, there really has not been a case, until now, that discusses a “fraudulent notice of nonpayment.”
In K&M Electric Supply, Inc. v. Brown Electrical Solutions, LLC, 51 Fla.L.Weekly D672a (Fla. 4th DCA 2026), a prime contractor and surety prevailed at the trial level on their fraudulent notice of nonpayment defense based on a supplier’s notice of nonpayment and action against a public payment bond (under Florida Statute s. 255.05).
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Did You Know: Unique Legal Considerations for Animal Care Facilities
August 24, 2026 —
Hannah Skidmore - Construction ExecutiveAnimal care facilities are highly specialized environments that require expertise far beyond traditional commercial or even standard medical construction. Whether designing and building animal shelters, doggy daycares, veterinary clinics or full-service animal hospitals, these facilities operate under conditions that introduce unique challenges related to sanitation, durability, animal behavior and operational workflows.
Because of these complexities, projects that fail to account for animal care requirements adequately often encounter costly issues—many of which result in litigation. Below are real-world examples drawn from expert witness work, followed by proactive best practices construction professionals should apply to future animal care projects.
Reprinted courtesy of
Hannah Skidmore, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the full story...
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
Turnover Traps for Community Associations: Investigate First, Release Claims Later
April 14, 2026 —
Nicholas B. Vargo - Ball Janik LLPTurnover of a community association from developer control to owner control is a uniquely vulnerable moment. Developers are increasingly presenting Florida condominium and homeowners’ associations with “standard” settlement or release agreements at turnover, often being framed as routine steps to finalize the transition of control. In reality, these agreements can have sweeping consequences, including the release of construction-defect claims before the association has conducted any meaningful independent evaluation.
The developer has years of project knowledge and access to plans, subcontractors, and internal records. The newly elected board is just beginning to organize, obtain documents, and understand the property’s condition. Many defects, especially those involving roofing, waterproofing, windows, or structural components, are latent and not yet visible. Signing a release at this stage means the association is making a binding decision under conditions of uncertainty, without full information, to release all future potential claims.
Over the last few years, there has been a rise in reports of developers offering a packaged deal: they agree to complete certain repairs, often minor punch-list or cosmetic items, and to “forgive” an alleged financial deficit (often around $50,000) supposedly owed by the association from the developer-control period. In exchange, the association is asked to sign a broad release covering all claims, including known and unknown construction defects. To a new HOA board that received their community with limited operating and reserve funds, they are left with a difficult decision to either accept the developer’s offer or assess their owners to pay this alleged debt.
These agreements are occasionally presented through community management companies, which may describe them as “standard” or "routine.” Whether due to misunderstanding or influence from the developer, management companies can unintentionally reinforce the idea that signing is expected. Any recommendation provided to HOAs about whether to sign these releases could open community management to liability down the road. The best practice for both associations and community managers is to refer any agreements to be reviewed by general counsel for the association.
The following two case studies illustrate the real-world consequences:
Case Study One: A newly transitioned board relies on its management company to negotiate with the developer-builder to resolve irrigation issues, pond concerns, and signage deficiencies, along with forgiving an asserted financial shortfall. In exchange, the board signs a broad release covering all claims, including latent defects.
Within a year, several punch-list items remain incomplete, and more serious issues arise. When the association demands completion, the developer delays, prompting the association to seek advice on how to enforce the settlement agreement. The association hires counsel to hold the developer responsible for both the previously agreed-upon items and newly identified construction defects. However, when the association brings claims against the developer, the developer points to the release of all potential construction defects in the community. Thus, the only remaining remedy is limited to enforcement of the specific punch-list terms. The community, still relatively new, has no viable claims against the developer-builder for the construction defects. With warranties expired and the release, the association must fund repairs through special assessments, despite defects that would otherwise have been actionable.
Case Study Two: A community is presented with a similar agreement as above. The management company encourages execution, suggesting it is standard and even telling the board to “name your price.” The developer also pressures the newly elected board to sign.
Instead of signing, the board consults with their attorney. Counsel advises the board not to sign the release and recommends further investigation. Engineers are retained and identify early indicators of broader issues, including stucco cracking, water intrusion, and irrigation deficiencies. Based on this information, the association declines to sign the release. Subsequent evaluation reveals potentially significant construction-defect claims, allowing the community to pursue recovery that would have been lost under the proposed agreement.
These scenarios underscore a fundamental point: signing a release at turnover is not an administrative formality—it is a major legal decision. Board members act in a fiduciary capacity on behalf of their community, and their decisions can bind all current and future owners. At turnover, an association’s right is to investigate and pursue claims. Preserving that right until a full and independent evaluation is completed is not adversarial—it is responsible governance.
Accordingly, associations should retain independent evaluations of the property and consult qualified legal counsel before signing any “standard” agreements, especially ones involving a release of future claims.
Nicholas B. Vargo is a partner in Ball Janik LLP’s Construction Practice Group. He may be reached at nvargo@balljanik.com.
