Consider The Limited Warranty from Your Homebuilder
July 06, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen purchasing a home from a homebuilder, there is an important consideration when it comes to the limited warranty you receive around the time you close on the home. That limited warranty likely includes an arbitration provision requiring you to arbitrate your disputes, such as construction defect claims, against the homebuilder. That arbitration provision will most likely include all claims, including statutory claims (such as a statutory violation of a building code claim), requiring you to arbitrate, as opposed to litigate, your disputes against the homebuilder. This is an important consideration. If the arbitration provision does not allow you to arbitrate all of your claims, and eliminates your rights to legitimate statutory claims, the arbitration provision could be unenforceable.
By way of example, in a residential construction defect dispute, Anderson v. Taylor Morrison of Florida, Inc., 223 So.3d 1088 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017), the appeal turned on whether the arbitration provision in the homebuilder’s limited warranty was valid. The homeowners took possession of their home in 2009. In 2015, the homeowners served a Florida Statutes Chapter 558 notice of construction defects that included a statutory violation of a building code claim under Florida Statute §553.84. The limited warranty included an arbitration provision that specified it was the “exclusive remedy” for all disputes arising out of or related to the warranty or issues with the home and property. When read together with the warranty’s disclaimer that precluded claims not covered by the warranty “whether in contract, tort, or otherwise,” the statutory building code violation claim could not be remedied through arbitration because it fell outside the warranty’s coverage.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Ball Janik LLP Welcomes Construction Defect Attorney and U.S. Air Force Veteran Jake Scott to its Fort Lauderdale Office
June 02, 2026 —
Ball Janik LLPBall Janik LLP, a leading construction defect and insurance recovery law firm, has welcomed Jake Scott as an associate in its Fort Lauderdale office. Scott joins the Construction Defect Practice Group, bringing experience across construction litigation that includes construction defect, contract dispute, and negligence matters, along with a track record of representing construction professionals through depositions, court appearances, and trial preparation to support the firm's steady growth and client service statewide.
"We're excited to welcome Jake Scott to our Fort Lauderdale office and Construction Defect Practice Group," said James C. Prichard, Managing Partner at Ball Janik LLP. "We look forward to the fresh perspectives and legal solutions he will provide for community associations across South Florida."
Scott is a results-driven attorney dedicated to providing strategic counsel for complex legal challenges. He has experience managing all phases of a case, from early investigation and discovery through trial preparation and settlement negotiations.
Prior to joining Ball Janik, Scott served as an associate attorney in Fort Lauderdale, where he represented clients in construction litigation matters, handled depositions and court appearances, conducted legal research, and drafted pleadings, motions, and briefs. He also worked as an attorney in Tampa, where he represented contractors, subcontractors, and construction firms in defending claims involving construction defects, contractual disputes, and negligence, and worked closely with expert witnesses, engineers, and consultants to develop and present technical evidence.
Scott's experience representing the development and building sides of construction disputes provides a valuable, contrast-driven perspective that supports the strategic evaluation of claims and practical approaches to resolution for Ball Janik's clients.
A proud veteran, Scott served in the United States Air Force for eight years, including roles as an Airspace Control Officer and in Space Systems Operations, supporting safe space flight operations and satellite communications.
Carrying the discipline of airborne operations, Scott worked in the aerospace sector as a Satellite Engineer and Orbital Analyst. He also held a role in the housing sector, supporting marketing and business development initiatives.
Scott received his law degree from Stetson University College of Law. He attended American Military University, where he earned degrees in marketing, business management, and related support services.
About Ball Janik LLP
Ball Janik LLP is a Florida-based law firm offering construction defect, construction law, insurance recovery, and commercial litigation counsel to its local and national clients. The firm was founded in 1982 and has expanded its capabilities, professionals, and geographic footprint. What started as a small firm focused on real property, land use, and litigation (known then as Ball Janik & Novack) has grown to a team of 50-plus attorneys and paralegals in 5 offices in Florida, with centuries of combined experience and capabilities. The firm has been recognized by Chambers USA, U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers®, The Best Lawyers in America©, and Corporate International. Read more here: https://www.balljanik.com.
New York Team Secures Dismissal of Premises Liability Action Against Client
May 26, 2026 —
Lewis BrisboisNew York Associate Nicole Koch and Partner Jennine Gerrard recently secured a complete dismissal of a plaintiff’s claims for injuries following a fall in front of a client’s business at an outdoor mall.
The plaintiff alleged that she was walking on the sidewalk outside of the client's hair care supply store in the Bronx in May 2024 when she tripped and fell on a broken/defective portion of the sidewalk. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff suffered injuries to her spine, hip, wrist, and both knees. She proceeded to file suit in New York County Supreme Court against Lewis Brisbois’ client and the landlord for the property.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
GRSM Trial Team Holds Alameda County Asbestos Verdict to $900,000 Against $50 Million Demand
July 27, 2026 —
Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Partners John Katerndahl and Vincent Gunter recently obtained an outstanding trial result for a manufacturer of asbestos-containing electrical cable, holding a jury verdict to $900,000 against a $50 million demand following an eight-week trial in Alameda County Superior Court, which is among the most challenging asbestos venues in the country. The GRSM team also included Associate Brandon Sanchez, on-site trial Paralegal Laura Vitanova, and Paralegal Kerrie Lease.
The plaintiffs, the surviving spouse and four children of a former painter who died of mesothelioma, alleged that the decedent was exposed to asbestos from the company’s electrical cable during construction of a California nuclear power facility. GRSM’s client was the sole remaining defendant at trial. The plaintiffs asked the jury for $50 million and called 15 witnesses across their case-in-chief and rebuttal.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Your AEC Firm Has a Memory Problem. Here Is How to Fix It
June 01, 2026 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessAEC companies trying to operationalize AI often find they lack the data foundation on which to build. There may be an abundance of data hidden in documents, but you can’t reliably use it for AI.
The lack of data quality was a key topic discussed at the AI in AEC 2026 conference. During the event, I met many experts working to solve this problem, including
Pavlina Nikolova,
Egnyte‘s EMEA AEC Practice Lead. The chat and her presentation highlighted the challenges and ways to overcome them.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
Idaho Supreme Court Delivers First Authoritative Construction on the Community Infrastructure District Act
November 09, 2026 —
Sara M. Ajeti & Tara Martens Miller - Snell & WilmerOn February 12, 2026, the Idaho Supreme Court issued its first authoritative decision construing the Community Infrastructure District Act (CID Act), Idaho Code §§ 50-3101 to 50-3121, in Doyle v. Harris Ranch Community Infrastructure District No. 1. The opinion resolves several issues of first impression — what qualifies as reimbursable “community infrastructure,” how strictly the 60-day statute of limitations bars challenges to a CID’s formation and bond authority, and whether a CID is legally distinct from its creating municipality. For developers forming or using a CID, the decision provides welcome certainty on the durability of CID bonds, reimbursement structures, and the scope of qualifying community infrastructure.
Background
The CID Act allows a developer to petition Idaho cities and counties to form special-purpose taxing districts that finance community infrastructure ahead of development and allow growth to “pay for itself.” I.C. § 50-3101(1)(a)–(c). “Community infrastructure” is broadly defined to include roads, sidewalks, parks, sewers, stormwater facilities, and other public facilities that have a “substantial nexus” to, and directly or indirectly benefit, the district. I.C. § 50-3102(2). A CID is formed upon petition by two-thirds of residents or all landowners within a proposed district to the governing city or county. Once formed, CIDs are political subdivisions with only the power the Act expressly grants, including the powers to contract, finance infrastructure, levy property taxes, and incur debt through general obligation bonds. I.C. § 50-3105(1). Qualified electors within the district must approve a ceiling bond amount by a two-thirds vote; once approved, the district board may issue additional bond series without a further elector vote, notice, or hearing. I.C. § 50-3108(1)–(3).
Reprinted courtesy of
Sara M. Ajeti, Snell & Wilmer and
Tara Martens Miller, Snell & Wilmer
Ms. Ajeti may be contacted at sajeti@swlaw.com
Ms. Miller may be contacted at tmmiller@swlaw.com
Read the full story...
Not All Warranty E-Mails Are Notices of Claim
October 20, 2026 —
David McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation BlogThere is a frustrating tendency in some Colorado construction defect litigation to treat virtually any written complaint about construction work as a statutory notice of claim under the Construction Defect Action Reform Act (“CDARA”). An e-mail complaining about cracked concrete. A request for warranty service. A message asking a builder to come inspect a leaking window. Years later, when the homeowner faces a statute-of-limitations defense, these routine communications are suddenly characterized as statutory notices of claim, with the convenient consequence that an otherwise untimely lawsuit becomes timely.
Enough is enough.
A warranty complaint is not a statutory notice of claim simply because a homeowner complains about construction. Courts and arbitrators should stop treating the two as interchangeable.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
A Permitting Base Checklist for Data Centers and Power Plants
June 02, 2026 —
Michael S. McDonough, Stephen J. Humes & Stacey C. Wright - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogThere is a lot of talk these days about “license to operate” for data centers, meaning management of the relationships with stakeholders and broader communities concerning both the benefits and adverse consequences of locating a facility in a particular locale. Here, we are speaking of “license to operate” more literally—namely, the legal and regulatory permitting and approval requirements for a privately owned data center whether by itself or colocated with a power generating plant.
Our Base Checklist includes generally and potentially applicable permitting requirements for development and operation, using California as an example. (Taking legal authority Frank Sinatra out of context, “If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere.”) The actual requirements for a given facility would depend, in part, on local law, including planning and zoning laws and plans, and the environment of the site. Just as examples, additional permitting and mitigation requirements might apply if sensitive receptors are located nearby (e.g., noise mitigation for residential dwellings), if sensitive and protected biological resources (e.g., jurisdictional waters and/or protected species) would be impacted, or if the present or former land uses require additional measures (e.g., hazardous materials remediation, mitigation for conversion of prime farmland, or protection of cultural resources). The scope of permit requirements would ultimately be determined by the applicable regulatory agencies and by the lead and responsible agencies under the applicable state environmental land use regime—in our reference case here, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. McDonough, Pillsbury,
Stephen J. Humes, Pillsbury and
Stacey C. Wright, Pillsbury
Mr. McDonough may be contacted at michael.mcdonough@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Humes may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Wright may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com
Read the full story...
