GRSM Secures Illinois Appellate Victory for Architectural Firm in Implied Warranty Dispute
May 14, 2026 —
Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Partner Jonathan Federman, Partner Thomas Cronin, and Senior Counsel Garrett Lee recently secured a victory in the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District, on behalf of the firm’s client, an architectural firm, in a liability dispute.
The case arose following an entity’s purchase of a 111-unit building for use as an investment or rental property. The plaintiff made claims against the architect of the building, alleging that there were design defects that breached an implied warranty, as well as a negligence claim.
GRSM argued that an architect could not be liable for implied warranties, particularly for an implied warranty which no Illinois court has ever recognized. GRSM further argued that Illinois law bars an architect from liability for negligence arising from a duty pursuant to contract under the economic loss doctrine.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
HHMR: A Retrospective — Chapter One (2001–2025)
January 26, 2026 —
David McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation BlogThere comes a point in every career when you stop long enough to look back, not out of nostalgia, but out of clarity. You begin to see the arc, the accidents, the grace, and the moments when others carried more of the burden than you realized at the time. For me, that moment came recently, somewhere between the twenty-fifth year of practicing construction litigation and the rewriting of our firm’s operating agreement. I found myself asking a question I should have asked long ago: What are we building, and will it last?
The truth is that we at HHMR do not build anything. Our clients do. They are the ones building Colorado, from single-family homes and multifamily developments to commercial, industrial, and infrastructure projects, navigating every constraint, hurdle, and barrier this state presents to them. They are the men and women in the arena, in Theodore Roosevelt’s sense. They pour foundations, frame walls, manage subs, balance supply chains, and take the risks inherent in the act of building anything of value. And for that work, they get sued. My job, and the job of this firm, is to defend them. We are their champions.
Understanding this truth is the starting point of HHMR 2.0. But to appreciate where we are going, you must first understand from where we came.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
John Palmeri and Peter Siachos Named to 2026 Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America
February 17, 2026 —
Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani is proud to announce that Partners John Palmeri and Peter Siachos have been named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America for 2026. Their inclusion reflects their extensive trial experience, national leadership roles, and sustained excellence representing clients in complex, high-stakes matters.
Now in its 21st year, the Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America guide honors attorneys who lead the profession through exceptional advocacy, dedication to clients, and influence within their firms and communities. Selected through yearlong research, peer discussion, and robust nominations, the guide recognizes lawyers who continue to shape the legal landscape at the highest levels.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Risks of Using an AI Chatbot for Legal Advice: Lessons from United States v. Heppner
April 08, 2026 —
Payne & Fears LLPImagine that you are an executive (who is not a lawyer) and are concerned about what your company plans to do is legal. You could call your lawyer who might bill you for the call. Or, you can ask your AI chatbot, such as Claude or ChatGPT, about the legal risk. The chatbot will likely compliment you on the incisive question, provide you with highly confident answer (that may or may not be right) and will not bill you on an hourly basis.
That is essentially what financial services executive Bradley Heppner did. It did not end well. A federal court recently ruled that Heppner’s chats with the AI tool Claude were not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. That means that the other side (in this case, the federal government) could get access to his chatbot prompts, uploads and responses, and learn a great deal about, for example, whether Heppner knew what he was doing was illegal.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Payne & Fears LLP
Don’t Breach Your Contract, but If You Do, Don’t Breach First
December 22, 2025 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsWell, it’s been a while since my last post here at
Musings due to travel, work, Thanksgiving, etc. so I thought I’d let a recent case remind us all that while breaching a construction contract is bad, doing it first is even worse. This is the so called “doctrine of first breach” that basically states that if both parties are in breach (or even just one), then the first to breach is the one that will bear the costs of breach. The doctrine also states that the one first to breach first can’t enforce any of its rights going forward.
The plaintiff in
SEG Props. LLC v. NTC Mazzuca Constr.,Inc., the Virginia Court of Appeals considered a first breach scenario that was pretty extreme. The basic facts are as follows:
SEG hired Mazzuca to build a private shooting range and hired a property manager (Jones, Lang, LaSalle, Inc. (“JLL”)) as its project representative. Per the contract, if Mazzuca provided a payment application on or before the 25th of the month, payment was due by the 25th of the following month. In no event was payment to be made more than 30 days from receipt of the payment application by the owner’s representative. Even where there was a dispute, the undisputed amounts were to be paid. Mazzuca and JLL used a so called “pencil” method for payment applications that involved JLL reviewing the payment applications for errors and then a final payment application with the corrections being sent to the Architect. Needless to say there were change orders and disputes, but after the smoke cleared, it was obvious that from the first payment application, SEG had failed to make timely payment (for the whole saga, please read the case as it is too long for this post). Later, SEG terminated Mazzuca for cause upon one day’s notice that SEG would be supplementing Mazzuca’s workforce.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Course of Conduct Can Serve as Waiver or Modification of Parties’ Contract
December 22, 2025 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen you enter into a contract, the language in the contract means something. And if you don’t follow what the contract says, it will be used against you. It can be used to support the argument that you breached the contract. Or it can be used to demonstrate your lack of compliance with the contract does not entitle you to the recourse you are seeking. However, this does not mean under certain circumstances the language of the contract cannot be waived or modified by the parties’ course of conduct.
In a recent dispute, an owner and contractor sued each other under a cost-plus contract. The contractor recorded a construction lien and moved to foreclose its construction lien. The owner claimed it was over-charged and claimed the contractor breached the contract. The contractor also claimed it was not timely paid with improperly withheld payment applications. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the contractor, which was affirmed on appeal based on the parties’ course of dealing:
The trial court concluded that, although the parties’ cost-plus contract required that all change orders be approved in writing, the summary judgment record established that this provision was routinely waived by the parties’ course of dealing: [owner] would orally request changes to the project; [contractor] would perform those changes; and [owner] would pay the invoices for those changes.
Moscato Corp. v. Mutchnik Construction Group, Inc., 411 So.3d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
How Mobile Tools Are Capturing Safety Data on Jobsites
April 08, 2026 —
Michael Bruns - Construction ExecutiveTraditionally, construction safety management is “reactive compliance”—reporting on an incident, filling out a form on paper or electronically, taking a picture and filing it away for compliance purposes. Safety management is shifting from reactive to proactive. Forward-thinking companies are using data and leading indicators to identify risks before incidents happen, not just document injuries after the fact.
Mobile tools have completely changed the way safety operations work on construction sites, enabling that transition to proactive safety management.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Bruns, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the full story...
Ninth Circuit Holds That Policies Covering Environmental Claims Do Not Have Aggregate Limits
May 12, 2026 —
Lorelie S. Masters & Joseph T. Niczky - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogIn the case of
County of San Bernardino v. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, the Ninth Circuit recently addressed the issue of whether general liability policies issued in the 1960s and 1970s included aggregate limits for claims arising under the premises-operations coverage in CGL policies. The difference between the policyholder’s interpretation of the policies’ limits clauses and the insurer’s interpretation was worth hundreds of millions of dollars in exposure for the insurer. The Court closely examined the policy language and extrinsic evidence from both the insurance industry’s drafting history and the parties before concluding that the policies were ambiguous. The Court construed that ambiguity in favor of the policyholder and ruled that aggregate limits did not apply to the claims at issue. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of carefully examining a policy’s limits, especially for older policies written before 1986 when the insurance industry revised the standard-form CGL policy to state the aggregate limits apply not only to products liability claims but to premises-operations claims as well. Decades of insurance industry drafting history confirms, as the policyholder’s submissions in this case indicate, that the industry well understood that operations claims like the environmental waste-disposal claims at issue here typically were not subject to aggregate limits.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and
Joseph T. Niczky, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@hunton.com
Mr. Niczky may be contacted at jniczky@hunton.com
Read the full story...
