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
“The Superintendent Told Us to Do It:” Why Verbal Approval May Not Be Enough
June 02, 2026 —
Andrew Lintner - Colorado Construction Litigation BlogIn construction defect litigation, one scenario appears repeatedly: a subcontractor installs work in a manner that differs from the plans, specifications, manufacturer instructions, or industry standards after being verbally directed to do so by the general contractor, superintendent, architect, or owner’s representative.
At the time, the decision may seem minor. The project is moving quickly, the field team wants to maintain progress, and nobody wants to stop working over what appears to be a small issue. The subcontractor may trust the superintendent or project manager and assume the conversation will be remembered later if questions arise.
Years later, however, when the project experiences problems, the people involved may deny the conversation occurred, remember it differently, or simply no longer remember the project. Without written documentation, the subcontractor can find itself defending claims for defective work, even though it performed the installation exactly as directed.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Andrew Lintner, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Lintner may be contacted at
alintner@hhmrlaw.com
Owner Taking Assignment of General Contractor’s Claims Against a Subcontractor(s)
September 21, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesHere’s a scenario that occurs in construction defect cases. An owner sues a general contractor and subs for construction defects. The owner settles with a number of parties and takes an assignment of the general contractor’s claims against some or all of the subs and pursues the remaining parties for indemnity based on the assignment of the general contractor’s claims.
This was the scenario in Craftsman Plastering and Lath, Inc. v. Rath Mor, LLC, 2026 WL 2328032 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026). The owner settled with the general contractor and all subs except one. The owner took an assignment of the general contractor’s claim against the sub, and really the indemnity claim. The owner was then substituted as the real party in interest as it relates to the general contractor’s claims against the sub. The owner sought roughly $780,000 in attorney’s fees and costs in connection with the dispute claiming the sub was liable for such fees. The jury didn’t buy the argument and awarded the owner about $55,000. Basically, the jury seemingly prorated the fees by the number of parties, at least, that’s how the math worked out. The owner didn’t like that and moved for an additur to increase the jury’s verdict which the trial court granted. This was reversed on appeal despite the fact that a trial court has broad discretion to grant a motion for additur.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Colorado Court Affirms Attorneys’ Fee Award Against Plaintiff’s Counsel for Pursuing Unsupported CCPA Claims
August 03, 2026 —
David McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation BlogThe Colorado Court of Appeals recently affirmed a trial court’s award of more than $241,000 in attorney fees against a plaintiffs’ attorney who continued to pursue unsupported claims arising out of a residential construction dispute. Although the opinion was not selected for official publication under C.A.R. 35(e) and therefore has no precedential value, it nevertheless provides an instructive reminder that Colorado courts are willing to impose significant financial consequences when claims lack substantial justification.
For builders, developers, contractors, insurers, and defense counsel, the case is worth reading, not because it announces new law, but because it demonstrates that Colorado’s fee-shifting statute remains a meaningful tool when unsupported claims continue long after they should have been abandoned.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Unable To Afford an Appellate Bond? You May Be “Indigent” And Qualify for a Discretionary Waiver or Reduction of the Bond Amount.
October 26, 2026 —
Suzanne M. Nicholson - Wilke FleuryOne of the most frequent questions asked when a client is considering taking an appeal from an adverse judgment or order is whether that judgment or order is stayed pending appeal. The answer, not surprisingly, is “it depends.” While the general rule is that perfecting an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court, including enforcement of the judgment or order, there are many, many, exceptions to that rule.
One such exception is a judgment or order for “money or the payment of money.” (CCP § 917.1) In such cases, a bond or undertaking is typically required to stay enforcement. The costs of such security can be significant. If you are using an admitted surety insurer, the amount of security required is 1 1/2 times the amount of the judgment. Obtaining a bond through an admitted surety will require that you have sufficient collateral to secure the bond, and sufficient funds to pay the associated premiums, which generally run between 1% and 3% of the total bond amount, per year. So, if you are appealing from a $1 million judgment, you will likely need $1.5 million in assets as collateral, and up to $30,000 per year for the premium.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Suzanne M. Nicholson, Wilke FleuryMs. Nicholson may be contacted at
snicholson@wilkefleury.com
Traub Lieberman Partner Ryan Parker and Associates Robert Biferie and Matthew Groteke Win Final Summary Judgment on Behalf of Homeowner’s Insurance Company
November 02, 2026 —
Ryan S. Parker, Robert Biferie & Matthew Groteke - Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman Partner Ryan Parker and Associates Robert Biferie and Matthew Groteke won final summary judgment on behalf of their client, a homeowner’s insurance company. The case related to a claim for damage caused by Hurricane Milton, which was reported more than ten months after the date of loss. The homeowner’s insurance company reviewed historical aerial photography of the roof and determined that there was no evidence of damage immediately after the Hurricane, which was inconsistent with the condition of the roof when it was inspected more than ten months later. Additionally, the homeowner’s insurance company was unable to determine when the interior water damage occurred due to the delay in reporting the claim. After a lawsuit was filed, the Traub Lieberman team took depositions of the Plaintiffs and the opposing expert and eventually filed a Motion for Summary Judgment based on the failure to timely report the claim and resulting prejudice to their client. The Court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment finding that notice of the claim was untimely as a matter of law and that the Plaintiffs failed to rebut the legal presumption of prejudice to the insurance company. As a result of the ruling, the insurance company has a valid claim for attorney’s fees.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ryan S. Parker, Traub Lieberman,
Robert Biferie, Traub Lieberman and
Matthew Groteke, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Parker may be contacted at rparker@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Biferie may be contacted at rbiferie@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Groteke may be contacted at mgroteke@tlsslaw.com
Read the full story...
OC Streetcar Project Mediation Sets $50M Payment to Walsh
July 20, 2026 —
Richard Korman - Engineering News-RecordWalsh Construction told a California state court judge last month that lawsuit mediation of its claims on an Orange County light-rail project—known as OC Streetcar—had produced a settlement of some claims under which the county agreed to pay the contractor almost an additional $50 million.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Richard Korman, Engineering News-RecordMr. Korman may be contacted at
kormanr@enr.com
Daily Journal Publishes Article by Brenda Radmacher on Proposed Overhaul of California Construction Defect Law
June 29, 2026 —
Brenda Radmacher - The Construction SeytDaily Journal (California) featured an article by Construction Law partner
Brenda Radmacher, “A new path for construction defects in California.” The piece, published on June 15, 2026, examines Assembly Bill 1903 and its potential to significantly reshape California’s construction defect framework, particularly for common interest properties.
The article highlights how AB 1903 would overhaul the state’s current right-to-repair system by mandating completion of prelitigation procedures, raising requirements for defect claims, strengthening developers’/builders’ rights to repair, and introducing a voluntary “certified building” program. The legislation aims to rebalance competing interests by reducing litigation-driven costs while preserving protections for homeowners.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brenda Radmacher, Seyfarth Shaw LLPMs. Radmacher may be contacted at
bradmacher@seyfarth.com
