Court Rules Cook County Misspent $243M in Transportation Funds
March 10, 2026 —
Annemarie Mannion - Engineering News-RecordA Cook County Illinois Circuit Court judge has ruled that the county violated the state constitution by using $243 million in transportation tax revenue during fiscal 2023 for non-transportation purposes, handing a legal win to a statewide coalition of construction trade groups.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Annemarie Mannion, Engineering News-RecordMs. Mannion may be contacted at
manniona@enr.com
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
“He Chose…Poorly: How Bad DSC Clauses Lead to Project Doom in the Last Crusade of Construction Risk”
March 10, 2026 —
Curt Martin & Lee Banta - ConsensusDocs“We do not follow maps to buried treasure, and X never, ever marks the spot.” That’s the advice that Indiana Jones offered in the Last Crusade film. But what’s beneath the surface isn’t just important to adventure archaeologists. It has real-world application to our industry, where success depends on the stability of materials below the surface.
The study of geology and soils has ancient roots. Egyptians relied on soil stability for the pyramids; Rome built a continent-wide roadway system utilizing subgrade preparation techniques; Medieval builders implemented a rudimentary foundation pier system; Henri Gautier studied what is now called the “angle of repose” for French retaining walls in the early 18th Century.
Through the 19th Century, contractors bore the risk of the stability of their work, and the attendant peril of unforeseen site conditions. But in the early 20th Century, design trades continued to develop increased understanding of soil and underground conditions. In the 1920’s US federal contracts began employing “differing site conditions” clauses, which provided for cost/time adjustments if subsurface conditions differed from expectations. Industry forms followed the federal policy, and these clauses became almost universally accepted.
Reprinted courtesy of
Curt Martin, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Lee Banta, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@pecklaw.com
Mr. Banta may be contacted at lbanta@pecklaw.com
Read the full story...
Engineering Seals Versus Contracts ‘Under Seal’ (Two Very Different Things)
May 05, 2026 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North CarolinaRecently, I was asked by a reader to explain the difference between a document that is
‘sealed’ by an engineer (or architect) and one that is
signed ‘under seal’. This question prompted this post, as others may also be wondering about the distinction. [Hi Ed! Thanks for your question]
Professionals have ‘seals’ that show that they are registered (Engineers) or licensed (Architects). As most of you likely know, your professional seal is something that is hard won and which is used when—and only when—your plans were made by you or someone under your direct supervisory control. Your signature represents that you were in
responsible control over the documents, and that they have met the required professional standard of care. (21 NC Admin Code 2-0206 (a)(11)).
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLCMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
U.S. Supreme Court Decision May Negate State Law Requirement to File a Certificate of Merit with the Complaint in a Federal Action Against a Design Professional
April 27, 2026 —
Christopher Olsen & Phillip Boldt - ConsensusDocsTo deter frivolous and unfounded claims against design professionals, states throughout the country have enacted statutes which generally require litigants to furnish a formal certification of merit (“COM”) from a qualified expert or face potential dismissal of their lawsuit. These COM statutes can impose a significant front-end burden on claimants who must pay an expert to review project records, interview the project team, and prepare a formal report before the lawsuit can be filed—often regardless of the amount in controversy. However, in light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in a medical malpractice case, most, if not all of these statutes, may no longer be enforceable in federal court. This article examines the recent decision in Berk v. Choy, 146 S. Ct. 546 (2026), the decisions thus far which have applied Berk to invalidate COM statutes, and other categories of statutes applicable to the construction industry which may face a similar fate.
The U.S. Supreme Court Decision (Berk v. Choy)
In Berk, the plaintiff, Harold Berk, sued a doctor for medical malpractice under Delaware law in Delaware federal court. 146 S. Ct. at 551. Under Del. Code, Tit. 18, § 6853(a)(1), an affidavit of merit (like a COM) must accompany a complaint alleging medical malpractice. Id. Berk failed to include an affidavit of merit with his complaint. Id. at 552. Applying Delaware state law, the federal court dismissed Berk’s medical malpractice claim. Berk appealed to the Third Circuit, arguing that the affidavit of merit required by § 6853(a)(1) is unenforceable in federal court because it is more onerous than the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling, finding § 6853(a)(1) enforceable in federal court.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Olsen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Phillip Boldt, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Olsen may be contacted at colsen@pecklaw.com
Mr. Boldt may be contacted at pboldt@pecklaw.com
Read the full story...
Damage from Frozen Pipes Excluded from Coverage
March 31, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiApplying Texas law, the federal district court found there was no coverage for damage to the insured’s commercial building due to the bursting of frozen pipes. Barona v. State Farm Lloyds, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 257379 (S.D. Texas Dec. 12, 2025).
Freezing weather froze Barona’s plumbing fixtures, causing significant water damage to the commercial property when the plumbing eventually expanded and burst. State Farm sent an inspector. During the inspection, Barona stated that he turned off the heat to his building but did not shut off the water supply or drain the pipes. State Farm denied covered based on the policy’s exclusion for frozen plumbing.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.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.
Are Robotic Coworkers Soon a Reality in Construction?
March 24, 2026 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessGeneral-purpose humanoid robots are in the headlines, but is the hype justified? What’s the point of having a robot home assistant when it still needs a “guy behind the curtain” to control it remotely?
Despite the challenges, robots, even those that look like humans, are seriously considered as future coworkers in business environments.
According to the McKinsey report
‘Will embodied AI create robotic coworkers?‘ the idea that AI-powered robots will become general-purpose coworkers is grounded in real technological progress, but not an overnight reality.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
