How AEC Firms Move AI Beyond the Pilot
July 27, 2026 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessMost AEC firms can run an AI pilot, but few can scale it. Enthusiasm for a first experiment rarely extends beyond the pilot team, leaving the pilot as an isolated win that never changes how the company works. In a recent
AEC Business Podcast episode,
Adeline Chan, CEO and co-founder of Hong Kong-based AAL Innovation, explained why that gap exists and what separates the firms that close it from those that stall.
The Pilot Mindset that Holds Construction Back
Adeline draws a sharp contrast between finance and construction. Banks cannot afford to fall behind their competitors, so they pilot constantly, sometimes running hundreds of proof-of-concept teams in parallel and letting them compete internally to identify the approach that works. The winning concept becomes the standard and scales across the organization, and the return on investment is measured in undeniable numbers.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
Arizona Court of Appeals Clarifies Homeowners Association Open Meeting Requirements
June 29, 2026 —
Jill Casson Owen, Benjamin J. Hawkins & Stephen Wright - Snell & WilmerA Z N H Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0424 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2026)
OVERVIEW
The Arizona Court of Appeals issued an opinion clarifying how homeowners associations must conduct meetings under A.R.S. § 33-1804. The decision reinforces the legislative policy favoring transparency in association governance, bringing association meeting requirements more in line with the open meeting standards applicable to public bodies under A.R.S. § 38-431 et seq. (Arizona’s Open Meeting Law).
KEY HOLDINGS
1. All Voting and Formal Actions Must Occur in Open Meetings
The Court affirmed that association boards cannot vote or take formal action during closed (executive) sessions. Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), associations may close portions of meetings only for “consideration” of certain enumerated topics, such as legal advice, pending litigation, or personal/financial information about individual members. The Court interpreted “consideration” to mean discussion and deliberation, not voting. The Court noted that dictionaries define “consider” as “spending time thinking about a possibility” and “formulating an opinion,” which are processes that precede formal action. This interpretation mirrors how Arizona’s Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 38-431.03(D)) prohibits public bodies from voting in executive session.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jill Casson Owen, Snell & Wilmer,
Benjamin J. Hawkins, Snell & Wilmer and
Stephen Wright, Snell & Wilmer
Ms. Owen may be contacted at jowen@swlaw.com
Mr. Hawkins may be contacted at bhawkins@swlaw.com
Mr. Wright may be contacted at swright@swlaw.com
Read the full story...
Insured General Contractor Prevails on Motion for Summary Judgment to Establish Builder’s Risk Coverage
July 06, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe general contractor’s motion for partial summary judgment successfully established that damage to footings in place before the policy period was covered after the collapse of a building. Big D Builders, Inc. v. Am Zurich Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72012 (D. Idaho March 31, 2026).
Big D was the general contractor for building a new airplane hangar by erecting a 38,000 square foot structure. Before Big D began construction, the site of the hangar did not contain any pre-existing structures or buildings. Before completion of the hangar, it collapsed and caused extensive property damage.
The builder’s risk policy issued by Zurich covered certain aspects of the construction project for the policy period December 28, 2023, to December 28, 2024. Zurich accepted coverage for most of the damage but not for damage to footings and columns installed prior to the start date of the policy.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Insureds’ Altering Dates for Hailstorm Damage Justifies Denial of Claim
June 02, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Firth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the insurer due to the insureds’ failure to establish the date of loss after a hailstorm. Cutchall v. Chubb Lloyds Ins. Co. of Texas, 2026 WL 625633 (5th Cir. March 5, 2026).
In September 2021, the Cutchalls made a claim on their policy for interior water damage due to a hailstorm that breached their roof. Chubb retained two engineers to inspect the home, but neither found evidence that a hailstorm caused the damage. Instead, the engineers concluded a variety of other causes, such as poor ventilation and as-built defects, caused the damage. Because Chubb concluded that some of these other causes were covered by the policy, it paid only for the covered portions.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Federal Court Finds that Master Agreement Bestows Additional Insured Coverage
November 09, 2026 —
Craig Rokuson - Traub LiebermanIn the recent case Triborough Scaffolding & Hoisting Servs. v. Sw. Marine & Gen. Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226876, Judge P. Kevin Castel, who was also operating as finder of fact, held that a subcontractor master agreement covered a subcontractor’s work at a specific project, such that an obligation to name the prime contractor Triborough as well as the undefined Owner, bestowed additional insured coverage to Triborough and the Owner under policies issued to the subcontractor.
The agreement at issue was dated December 15-16, 2017 and the accident at issue occurred in 2018. The trial evidence includes testimony from both Triborough and the subcontractor that the agreement was intended to apply annually, and the subcontractor could not recall the parties ever signing a project-specific agreement. Further, Triborough assigned work to the subcontractor by telephone call or texts on several projects, and without a project-specific contract. Moreover, no other operative indemnity or insurance agreement between Triborough and the subcontractor, other than a backdated agreement that was not applicable. Finally, the court did not find plausible that the subcontractor would enter into an agreement meant only to cover the final two weeks of 2017, such that the agreement extended into work occurring in 2018.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Rokuson, Traub LiebermanMr. Rokuson may be contacted at
crokuson@tlsslaw.com
Supply Chain Is a Legal Exposure—Not Just a Force Majeure Problem
September 08, 2026 —
Owen Newman - Construction ExecutiveThis is not another force majeure article. The supply-chain related legal exposure that contractors are carrying today—in sanctions risk, specification non-compliance, warranty exposure and regulatory volatility—extends well beyond what even a well-drafted force majeure clause protects.
An engineering, procurement and construction contractor on a gas-fired power plant discovers during commissioning that transformer oil in a critical unit contains Russian-origin naphthenic base oil, which is a prohibited source under Office of Foreign Assets Control sanctions. The contractor didn’t source it. A subsupplier two tiers below made the substitution when disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz tightened the primary supply chain for this specialty product and no one in the purchase-order chain flagged it. The procurement decision is long done and the documentation trail that should have caught it doesn’t exist.
Reprinted courtesy of
Owen Newman, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the full story...Mr. Newman may be contacted at
oknewman@duanemorris.com
Fight for Your Right: Effects of FAR Final Rule on Construction
October 12, 2026 —
Michael Altman - Construction ExecutiveSince the Federal Acquisition Regulation final rule Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects took effect, contractors seeking to compete for federal projects of $35 million or more must “negotiate or become a party to a project labor agreement with one or more labor organizations.” While this requirement significantly reduces competition for covered procurements, contractors may seek to restore competition on individual solicitations by filing a bid protest with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
Bid protests through the COFC become possible once a federal agency posts a solicitation that includes contract provisions mandating a PLA. (In some cases, a presolicitation notice that a PLA mandate will be applied may be sufficient.)
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Altman, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the full story...Mr. Altman may be contacted at
altman@abc.org
The “Pay When Paid” Clause in California Construction—Strategies as the Battle Continues
August 03, 2026 —
William L. Porter - Porter Law GroupIt is well known in California Construction circles that the “Pay If Paid” clause is illegal in this state. There is a great distinction, though, between this clause and a similar clause, known as a “Pay When Paid” clause. A pay if paid clause allows a contractor to tell a subcontractor that if the contractor is unpaid for the subcontractor’s work, then the contractor has no legal obligation to pay the subcontractor, ever. For a great variety of reasons, the California Supreme Court, in the case of Wm. R. Clarke Corp v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America (1997) 15 Cal.4th 882, declared this type of clause illegal in California Construction.
Although the pay if paid clause is illegal in California, the pay when paid clause is still perfectly legal and is found in many subcontracts that contractors issue to their subcontractors. The pay when paid clause allows a contractor to delay paying its subcontractors until the dispute between the contractor and the property owner over payment has been resolved and the contractor is paid by the property owner. Although seemingly reasonable (since it merely delays payment until the contractor is paid by the owner, thereby providing a funding source to pay subcontractors), significant problems still arise.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Porter, Porter Law GroupMr. Porter may be contacted at
bporter@porterlaw.com
