That’s a Wrap! Pennsylvania Court Holds Arbitration Clause in Online Agreement Unenforceable
May 14, 2026 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Duffy v. Tatum, 2026 Pa. Super. LEXIS 112, 2026 PA Super 41, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Superior Court) considered whether an arbitration provision contained in the online Terms of Service on the defendant’s website were enforceable. The plaintiff, Daniel Duffy (Duffy), visited the website of defendant, Dolly, Inc. (Dolly), to purchase moving services. Duffy selected the number of movers, items to be moved and the type of vehicle needed. To complete the booking, the website required Duffy to checkmark a box labeled “By checking this box I accept the Dolly Terms of Service.” Duffy did not have to open the link or scroll to the bottom of the agreement before being able to click on the checkmark box. The Terms of Service included an arbitration provision requiring that any dispute related to the moving services to be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the American Arbitration Association. The Terms of Service did not include any statement that the user was waiving the right to a jury trial. The Superior Court found the internet Terms of Service unenforceable.
During the moving process, an accident occurred and injured Duffy. In May 2024, Duffy and his wife sued Dolly and other related entities alleging negligence and loss of consortium. Dolly filed preliminary objections alleging that the parties agreed to alternative dispute resolution. The lower court overruled the preliminary objections, finding that Dolly’s website did not provide reasonably obvious notice of its Terms of Service to Duffy and, as such, Duffy never agreed to waive his constructional right to a jury trial. Dolly filed an appeal to the Superior Court.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and Williams LLPMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
Colorado Supreme Court Reverses Course on Public Project Liens: Key Takeaways From Wadsworth v. Regional Rail Partners
July 27, 2026 —
Amanda E. McKinlay - Snell & WilmerOn April 6, 2026, the Colorado Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Ralph L. Wadsworth Construction Company, LLC v. Regional Rail Partners, 2026 CO 19, reversing the Colorado Court of Appeals and providing much-needed clarity regarding verified statements of claim (VSOCs) under the Colorado Public Works Act, C.R.S. §§ 38-26-101 et seq. The decision resolves two issues that have generated significant concern among construction industry professionals since the Court of Appeals issued its opinion on August 1, 2024.
Under C.R.S. § 38-26-107(1), a subcontractor on a public works project may file a VSOC with the contracting public entity for amounts due and unpaid for “…furnished labor, materials, sustenance, or other supplies used or consumed by a contractor or his or her subcontractor in or about the performance of the work contracted to be done or that supplies laborers, rental machinery, tools, or equipment to the extent used in the prosecution of the work….” If a claimant files a VSOC for “an amount greater than the amount due” without a reasonable possibility that the amount is due and with knowledge that the claim is excessive, the claimant “shall forfeit all rights to the amount claimed” and becomes liable for the opposing party’s costs and attorneys’ fees. C.R.S. § 38-26-110.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Amanda E. McKinlay, Snell & WilmerMs. McKinlay may be contacted at
amckinlay@swlaw.com
GRSM Defeats Class Certification in Precedent-Setting HOA Management Case
September 15, 2026 —
Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Partners Fletcher Alford and Kevin Liu and Associate Jigar Desai secured a favorable outcome on behalf of an HOA management company in a precedent-setting class action before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, obtaining denial of the plaintiff’s motion for class certification and dismissal without prejudice of the three claims at issue.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant received earnings credit payments from a bank in exchange for maintaining HOA deposit accounts and failed to disclose the arrangement to its HOA clients. The plaintiff sought more than $40 million in damages, asserting five claims: (1) breach of contract for failing to act in class members’ best interests by not disclosing the alleged earnings credit arrangement; (2) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) based on alleged violations of California Civil Code §§ 5375, 5375.5, and 5380; (3) breach of fiduciary duty based on the alleged undisclosed arrangement; (4) violation of the UCL for unfair business practices arising from the alleged nondisclosure; and (5) unjust enrichment. The plaintiff sought class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) only as to its second, third, and fourth causes of action.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
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
New York Orders Moratorium on Large Data Center Permits
July 27, 2026 —
Levi W. Barrett - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Levi W. Barrett, Co-Managing Partner of Peckar & Abramson’s New Jersey office, Co-Chair of the firm’s
Construction Contracts & Risk Management team, and Executive Committee Member, was recently quoted in “New York Orders Moratorium on Large Data Center Permits,” an article written by
Engineering News-Record (ENR). The article examines New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s executive order temporarily halting state environmental permit reviews for certain large-scale data center projects while regulators develop a comprehensive framework to address the sector’s energy demands, water consumption, environmental impacts, and effects on local communities. It also explores the broader implications of the moratorium for developers, contractors, investors, and other stakeholders, as well as the ongoing debate between economic development, AI-driven infrastructure growth, and environmental and utility ratepayer concerns.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Levi W. Barrett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Mr. Barrett may be contacted at
lbarrett@pecklaw.com
The Great Escape: Non-Invalidation Clauses and Property Damage Claims
October 20, 2026 —
Abigail Smith & Kaarthiga Manimaran - SDV FenchurchAt their core, non-invalidation clauses (“NICs”) recognise an important commercial reality: an insured cannot control everything that happens at its premises.
In the event that an insured finds itself in breach of a condition or warranty owing to events that have increased the risk of damage to its property, but which were outside its authority, knowledge or beyond its control, a NIC may prevent the insurer from avoiding the claim. For that reason, they’re an important tool in an insured’s coverage arsenal.
Although there is relatively little caselaw on NICs, their purpose was recognised in The Seashell of Lisson Grove Ltd v Aviva Insurance Ltd [2011] EWHC 1761 (Comm) (on which we wrote a previous article –
The Good, the Bad & the Ugly: #26 The Good: The Seashell of Lisson Grove Ltd v Aviva)
Reprinted courtesy of
Abigail Smith, SDV Fenchurch and
Kaarthiga Manimaran, SDV Fenchurch
Ms. Smith may be contacted at abigail.smith@sdvfenchurch.uk
Ms. Manimaran may be contacted at kaarthiga.manimaran@sdvfenchurch.uk
Read the full story...
Suit Limitation Provision Eliminates Wind Loss Claim
July 27, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted after the insured failed to file suit against the insurer within the policy’s two-year suit limitation provision. Interstate Investments, LLC v. Mt. Hawley Ins Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98108 (S.D. N. Y. May 4, 2026).
On or before June 27, 2023, a wind, hail and rainstorm damaged Interstate’s property in Oklahoma. Interstate filed a claim under its policy with Mt. Hawley. The policy provided that New York law applied and contained a two- year suit limitation provision.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Not Every Job Is Worth Winning: Contract Risk Questions Contractors Should Ask Before They Bid
September 29, 2026 —
Jack Mayo - ConsensusDocsIntroduction
Winning the work is not the same as winning the project, at least financially. Consider a contractor that commits to procure custom or long-lead materials before receiving complete construction documents. Depending on the language of the contract, if the final design is altered after those materials have been ordered, the contractor may be left responsible for replacement costs, procurement delays, or both. Alternatively, a subcontractor that accepts a pay-if-paid provision without investigating the owner’s financing, or prematurely waives lien rights, potentially risks nonpayment for properly performed work.
Such concessions can quickly transform an apparently profitable project into a significant financial burden. A successful bid can therefore become an unsuccessful project if the contractor accepts contractual “red flags” without evaluating their consequences and the long-term financial impacts that they may have. The significance of each risk will depend on the project, the parties, the proposed contract, applicable law, and the contractor’s business objectives. Although not comprehensive, this article identifies several key considerations for that process to help mitigate certain risks.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jack Mayo, Jones Walker LLPMr. Mayo may be contacted at
jmayo@joneswalker.com
