The Most Expensive Signature to Not Get: Why Change Orders Matter
August 16, 2026 —
Kathryne E. Baldwin - Wilke FleuryGeorge Bernard Shaw has a quote we use a lot in my family: “The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.” This is pertinent to contractors and homeowners alike because the cost of failing to get proper signatures on documents like construction contracts, and particularly, change orders, is heavy. Both contractors and homeowners are in the same boat as far as wanting to complete a job as swiftly as possible: contractors go on to their next job and homeowners can return to peace in their home. This is prime territory for either party to suggest the work be completed today and the contract or change order executed tomorrow, or even later. However, without a contract, there is no memorialization of the communication between the parties, which can lead to confusion and missed expectations on both sides.
Construction plans are rarely as neat and tidy as they originally seem to be. A contractor may uncover unforeseen conditions, an owner may request additional work or changes that require additional work, or weather interferes with project schedules or the work itself. Unfortunately, the signature that never gets collected can become one of the most expensive omissions on a project – for both sides.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kathryne E. Baldwin, Wilke FleuryMs. Baldwin may be contacted at
kbaldwin@wilkefleury.com
No Ink, No Problem: When Employees and Agents Can Enforce Arbitration Agreements
August 11, 2026 —
Jordan Heath & Jacob Morrison - ConsensusDocsArbitration is a fundamental component of modern construction contracting. Many in the industry recognize the potential benefits and protections arbitration can provide to the business in the event of a dispute. But an important question many contracts do not address is: who does the arbitration agreement cover? Does it include the business entity only, or the individuals acting on behalf of the entity?
As courts have long recognized, entities can generally only act through their employees, representatives, or agents.[1] This article discusses the circumstances in which an agent may rely on an arbitration provision entered by its employer. This is known as the agency doctrine.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jordan Heath, Associate, Jones Walker LLP and Jacob Morrison, Law Student University of Georgia, Jones Walker LLP
Read the full story...Mr. Heath may be contacted at
jheath@joneswalker.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
The Best Lawyers in America® - Ball Janik Attorneys Earn Multiple Recognitions
September 01, 2026 —
Ball Janik LLPOrlando, FL, August 20, 2026 – Ball Janik LLP is pleased to announce that 24 of its attorneys have been recognized in the 2027 editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. The 33rd Best Lawyers edition recognitions are based on peer review and highlight attorneys across a range of practice areas. This recognition underscores the broad experience Ball Janik's attorneys bring to the firm's construction defect practice.
"We're proud to be recognized by Best Lawyers again this year," said James C. Prichard, Managing Partner of Ball Janik LLP. "These honors reflect the expertise and depth of our team, our continued growth across Florida, and our commitment to providing strong counsel to clients in complex construction, insurance recovery, and litigation matters."
Ball Janik attorneys recognized in the 2027 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® include:
Keegan A. Berry — Construction Law
Brian T. Crevasse — Construction Law; Litigation - Construction
Todd Demetriades — Litigation - Construction
Joseph R. Fitos — Construction Law; Litigation - Construction
Megan A. Picataggio — Construction Law
Jon E. Lemole — Construction Law; Litigation - Construction
Salvatore G. Scro — Construction Law
Nicholas B. Vargo — Construction Law; Litigation - Construction
Kelly M. Corcoran — Construction Law
Gabriel Z. Coelho — Construction Law
Evan J. Small — Construction Law; Litigation - Construction
Franchesco Soto — Construction Law; Litigation - Construction
Phillip E. Joseph — Litigation - Construction; Real Estate Law
James C. Prichard — Construction Law
Ball Janik attorneys recognized in the 2027 edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America include:
Nicholas Passantino — Litigation - Construction
Amanda L. Gonzalez — Construction Law; Litigation - Construction
Morgan N. Lester — Litigation - Construction
Chris S. Tribbey — Construction Law
Kyle Bugden — Construction Law; Litigation - Construction
Brian Tannenbaum — Construction Law
Kayla Mosquera — Insurance Law
Natasha L. Biela — Commercial Litigation
Elijah C. Waring, Jr. — Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
Greg K. Demers — Construction Law
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 70-plus attorneys and paralegals in five offices in Florida, with centuries of combined experience and capabilities. The firm has been recognized by Chambers USA, including for its construction law capabilities in Florida, U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers®, The Best Lawyers in America©, Super Lawyers, and Corporate International. Read more at www.balljanik.com.
Idaho Contractor Registration: Lessons from the Ward v. Bishop Decision
April 20, 2026 —
Tara Martens Miller - Snell & WilmerThe Idaho Supreme Court’s recent decision in Ward v. Bishop Constr., Ltd. Liab. Co., No. 51118, 2025 Ida. LEXIS 143 (Dec. 31, 2025) offers valuable guidance for contractors and construction attorneys navigating the Idaho Contractor Registration Act (ICRA). The December 2025 ruling clarifies critical questions about when and how defendants may raise contractor registration defenses, the weight of pretrial stipulations, and the consequences of procedural missteps in construction litigation. This article examines the key takeaways from the decision and offers practical actions for consideration by those working in Idaho’s construction industry.
The Facts Behind the Dispute
The case arose from a long-standing working relationship between cousins Joel Ward and Ren Bishop dating to the 1990s. Ward performed general construction work for Bishop Construction, LLC, including building, plumbing, electrical, framing, roofing, and siding work on projects in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Bishop agreed to pay Ward $10 per hour, later increased to $12 per hour, plus one-way travel expenses. Between 2017 and 2019, Ward worked over 1,100 hours but was never paid, totaling $12,443.54 in claimed damages.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tara Martens Miller, Snell & WilmerMs. Miller may be contacted at
tmmiller@swlaw.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...
Newmeyer Dillion Ranked in Chambers Spotlight California 2026 Guide
May 26, 2026 —
Newmeyer DillionNEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – May 14, 2026 - Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer Dillion has been ranked in Chambers Spotlight California 2026 guide and recognized as a leading firm in Litigation: General Commercial for Orange County.
Newmeyer Dillion was selected based on an independent and in-depth market analysis, coupled with an assessment of the firm’s experience, expertise and caliber of talent where the firm stood out for its exceptional work and is recognized in Litigation: General Commercial.
Managing Partner Paul Tetzloff expressed the firm's gratitude: “It is an honor for our firm to be recognized by Chambers and Partners in their Spotlight California 2026 guide. This acknowledgment reflects our commitment to providing high quality legal services tailored to the unique needs of our clients.”
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Newmeyer Dillion
IEEPA Tariff Refunds: CBP Launches CAPE Process
April 27, 2026 —
David J. Creagan, Guido Antolini, Bruce W. MacLennan & Gary P. Biehn - White and Williams LLPOn April 20, 2026, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) launched the first phase of the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) tool in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) portal to administer refunds of duties imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) through a streamlined electronic filing process.
Background
In February 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held that certain tariffs imposed under IEEPA were unlawful. Subsequent proceedings before the U.S. Court of International Trade required CBP to develop a scalable refund process applicable not only to litigants but also to non-plaintiffs. According to CBP and court filings, approximately 330,000 importers paid or deposited an estimated $166 billion in IEEPA duties across more than 53 million entries. In response, CBP developed CAPE as an electronic, consolidated refund mechanism within ACE.
Reprinted courtesy of
David J. Creagan, White and Williams LLP,
Guido Antolini, White and Williams LLP,
Bruce W. MacLennan, White and Williams LLP and
Gary P. Biehn, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Creagan may be contacted at creagand@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Antolini may be contacted at antolinig@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. MacLennan may be contacted at maclennanb@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Biehn may be contacted at biehng@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the full story...
