Document Everything! Always! No Exceptions! (AKA, Help Your Lawyer Help You!)
April 14, 2026 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North CarolinaI had a case last year in which once again I found myself thinking: if only my client had better documented the verbal agreements, we would have had a much easier time defending his work.
I know this is often easier said than done— you are in the middle of building a project, and you get a call, and you need to keep the project moving. No time for written change directives or a special bulletin. And yet—it is simply amazing to me the number of people who develop “litigation amnesia” about things when a lawsuit is involved.
Your documentation system does not need to be perfect. You can use a simple Field notebook and handwritten notations. A text memo to yourself or, better yet, an email confirmation to the owner/contractor/whoever.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLCMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
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
Predict Risk, Not Incidents: A New Analytics Framework for Your Construction Safety Data
August 03, 2026 —
Tabrez Zahoor - Construction ExecutiveBehind every “zero-incidents” company report, hidden hazards may already be accumulating—
risks that could become serious injuries tomorrow. The question every executive should be asking is not, “Did anything go wrong last month?” It is: “Where is risk building on my projects right now?”
Most construction organizations cannot answer that question. Not because the data does not exist—it does. Every active project generates daily inspection findings, labor records, near-miss reports and audit results. The problem is that standard safety systems collect this data and then report it in ways that make it operationally useless for prevention. They describe the past. They predict nothing.
The predictive safety analytics framework (PSAF) is a practical, deployable system developed from years of applying data science to large-scale construction portfolio operations that takes the safety data construction organizations already collect and transforms it into a forward-looking risk signal. The result? A single weekly score that tells executives where risk is concentrating across their portfolio before anyone gets hurt.
Reprinted courtesy of
Tabrez Zahoor, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the full story...
Seventh Circuit, With an Assist From the Illinois Supreme Court, Finds That “Pollution Exclusion” Bars Coverage For Emissions Allowed Under Regulatory Permit
April 20, 2026 —
Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogIn Griffith Foods Int’l Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 24-1217 & 24-1223 (7th Cir. Mar. 13, 2026), the Seventh Circuit addressed the meaning and scope of a pollution exclusion in a standard-form commercial general liability insurance policy for underlying injuries caused by ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions. The insurance dispute arose out of underlying tort litigation involving bodily injury claims, including cancer, allegedly caused by emissions of ethylene oxide over a 35-year period from 1984 through 2019 by Griffith Foods International and later Sterigenics U.S. The pollution exclusion at issue generally barred coverage for “bodily injury” arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants.
Interpreting similar exclusions, the Illinois Supreme Court has previously held that the standard CGL pollution exclusion bars coverage for bodily injuries caused by traditional environmental pollution (essentially industrial emissions of pollutants), but not by more commonplace emissions (such as carbon monoxide from a residential furnace or excess chlorine in a backyard swimming pool). See American States Insurance Co. v. Koloms, 177 Ill. 2d 473 (Ill. 1997). In Griffith Foods, the District Court initially concluded that the pollution exclusion did not apply because the companies emitted EtO pursuant to a permit issued by the IEPA. The District Court reached this latter conclusion by applying Erie Insurance Exchange v. Imperial Marble Corp., 957 N.E.2d 1214 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011), an Illinois intermediate appellate court decision finding it ambiguous whether a CGL policy’s pollution exclusion barred coverage for emissions authorized by regulatory permit.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Taylor, Traub LiebermanMr. Taylor may be contacted at
jtaylor@tlsslaw.com
Labor Shortages in Construction: Managing Legal and Operational Risks
April 14, 2026 —
Meghan Douris - Construction ExecutiveLabor shortages in the construction industry have become more than a scheduling headache—they are a legal and financial risk multiplier. As contractors scramble to meet deadlines with limited manpower, shortcuts in compliance, safety and subcontractor oversight become more likely. These gaps can expose companies to regulatory penalties, contractual disputes and reputational damage. Understanding how workforce constraints intersect with labor laws and contractual obligations is critical to mitigating the risks and navigating these challenges without compromising compliance or project integrity.
The construction industry has faced persistent workforce challenges for years, but recent trends have intensified the problem. Factors such as an aging workforce, reduced immigration and post-pandemic recovery pressures have left contractors struggling to find skilled labor. According to
Associated Builders and Contractors, the construction workforce shortage surpassed half a million workers in 2024; in the same year,
Associated General Contractors reported 88% of construction companies had difficulty finding qualified workers.
Reprinted courtesy of
Meghan Douris, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the full story...
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.
Connecticut Expands Construction Wage-Theft Liability and Prevailing Wage Recordkeeping Requirements
June 29, 2026 —
Anand Gupta & Guest Contributor - Construction Law ZoneThis post was co-authored by Labor + Employment group lawyer Christopher Costain, Hayden Eckblom (Summer Intern), and Pasqualina Fox-Mina (Summer Associate). Hayden and Pasqualina are not admitted to practice law.
On May 11, 2026, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed into law Public Act 26-12, a wide-ranging bill centered around employee rights. Our colleagues in Robinson+Cole’s Labor, Employment, Benefits + Immigration group recently published a
legal update summarizing the key components of Public Act 26-12. Here, we focus on the Wage Theft and Prevailing Wage concepts in the bill that directly relate to the construction industry.
Wage Theft
With exceptions for public works and small residential projects, general contractors will be jointly and severally liable for any unpaid wages owed to an employee of a subcontractor of any tier on private construction projects, beginning with contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2027. As we know, there is a separate regime for public works projects involving payment bonds.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anand Gupta, Robinson & Cole LLPMr. Gupta may be contacted at
agupta@rc.com
Sometimes a General Damages Assessment is Enough. . .
July 06, 2026 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIt has been a while since I last posted here at
Construction Law Musings. Life, law practice, and “blogger’s block” have taken their toll on the posting schedule. Hopefully this will be one of several upcoming posts now that the litigation schedule has lightened a bit over the summer.
Today’s post is about damages. Specifically damage to a homeowner’s roof and her legal damages therefor. That last is of course a sentence that only a
construction attorney (or other litigator) could possibly craft and have it make sense. Now, on with the case. . .In
Hardesty Construction, Inc. v. Weedon, the facts are as follows:
Ms. Weedon had hail damage to the roof of her home. She hired Hardesty Construction to repair and replace the roof. After the first roof was installed and failed inspection, a second roof was installed. The issue was that the first roof had a warranty and the second roof, installed similarly to the first (and allegedly with the same construction issues according to Ms. Weedon’s expert), was not provided with the promised warranty. As one may expect, Weedon sued Hardesty and Hardesty Construction for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract. At trial, Weedon testified, without objection, that her home was worth $40,000 less because of Hardesty Construction’s work, which was based partially on quotes Weedon received to fix the roof. The Circuit Court granted Hardesty Construction’s motion to strike Weedon’s fraudulent inducement claim, but not her other claims. A jury awarded Weedon $30,253.30 on her breach of contract claim. Hardesty Construction appealed, arguing the Circuit Court erred in (a) allowing the jury to consider Weedon’s valuation testimony because it was not based on her personal knowledge and (b) denying its motion to strike based on insufficient evidence as to damages. Weedon assigned cross-error in the Circuit Court’s decision to grant the motion to strike her fraudulent inducement claim against Samual Hardesty.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
