In the Eye of the Beholder: Court of Appeal Finds Duty of Care Owed by Owner and Contractors for Death of Minors Caused by Independent Truck Driver
May 05, 2026 —
Garret D. Murai - California Construction Law BlogI was a T.A. for my high school history teacher, a really smart and nice guy, Mr. Reynolds. In the room at the back of the classroom which served as his office he had
the picture above. It’s called “My Wife and My Mother-in-Law” and is taken from a German postcard from 1888. Depending on how you look it, you might see fashionable young lady, or an old lady.
Cases can sometimes be like that: You see what you want to see. The next case is also like that.
In
Lorenzo v. Calex Engineering, Inc., 110 Cal.App.5th 49 (2025), the 2nd District Court of Appeals reversed a motion for summary judgment granted in favor of an owner and its contractors in a case involving the death of two minors struck by a dump truck enroute to a non-permitted off-site staging area.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret D. Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Southwest Super Lawyers Recognizes 50 Snell & Wilmer Attorneys in 2026 Rankings
June 15, 2026 —
Snell & WilmerPHOENIX (April 22, 2026) – Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that 50 attorneys in the Phoenix and Tucson offices have been selected for inclusion in the 2026 Southwest Super Lawyers publication. Of those 50, four were recognized for the first time and 24 were recognized as Southwest Rising Stars. Super Lawyers is a listing of lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations, and peer evaluations. Super Lawyers was first published in 1991 by Law & Politics and was acquired by Thomson Reuters, Legal in February 2010. Thomson Reuters is a leading source of information for businesses and professionals. The below Snell & Wilmer attorneys have been selected for inclusion in the 2026 Southwest Super Lawyers rankings.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Snell & Wilmer
Voluntary Dismissal of an Indemnity Claim Does Not Make the Subcontractor a “Prevailing Party,” Washington Court of Appeals Holds
September 21, 2026 —
Margarita Kutsin - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCIn
King County v. Walsh Construction Company II, LLC, No. 86503-0-I (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 4, 2025), an unpublished decision from Division I of the Washington Court of Appeals, the Court affirmed the denial of a subcontractor’s request for prevailing-party attorney fees under an indemnity clause after the general contractor voluntarily dismissed its indemnity claims. Because the indemnity claim was no longer live and no determination of fault had occurred, the Court held that the trial court did not err in denying the request. ACS represented Walsh, the general contractor, in securing the denial of the fee request at the trial court that the Court of Appeals affirmed.
A Pass-Through Indemnity Claim That Ended Before Fault Was Decided
The dispute arose out of a public works contract under which King County hired Walsh Construction Company II, LLC (“Walsh”) to construct and install a conveyance pipeline. After the pipeline broke, King County sued Walsh for breach of contract and warranty, expressly identifying both Walsh and its subcontractor, Mears Group Inc., (“Mears”) as responsible. Walsh tendered defense and indemnity to Mears under the subcontract.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Margarita Kutsin, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMs. Kutsin may be contacted at
margarita.kutsin@acslawyers.com
Two Important Points Regarding the Miller Act
September 15, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent Miller Act case, U.S. f/u/b/o Boundless Management Outsourcing Group, LLC v. Endurance Assurance Corp, 2026 WL 2241491 (D. Puerto Rico 2026), confirms two important points when it comes to the Miller Act. In this case, a subcontractor pursued a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit more than one year after its work was finished. The subcontractor also asserted a claim against the federal government. The lawsuit was dismissed. Below are two takeaway points to consider if you are dealing with a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit.
First, as it relates the claim against the federal government, the federal district court followed authority that held that the Miller Act does NOT include a waiver of sovereign immunity against the federal government. “[T]he Court does not identify any clear language in the Miller Act expressly waiving the United States or its agencies’ sovereign immunity.” Endurance Assurance Corp., supra at *3.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Snell & Wilmer Recognized Among the Top 10 Largest Law Firms in Orange County by the Orange County Business Journal for the Ninth Consecutive Year
April 27, 2026 —
Snell & WilmerORANGE COUNTY – Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that its Orange County office has been named the eighth largest law firm in Orange County on the Orange County Business Journal’s
2026 List of Law Firms. The office has been ranked among the top 10 largest law firms in the region by the Orange County Business Journal for nine consecutive years.
“We are proud to once again be recognized among the top law firms in Orange County,” said
Jonathan E. Frank, managing partner of the firm’s Orange County office. “This recognition is a testament to the outstanding attorneys and professionals in our Orange County office and the clients who trust us with their most important matters. Being ranked among the top 10 largest firms in the region for nine consecutive years reflects both the strength of our team and our deep commitment to serving the Orange County business community.”
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Snell & Wilmer
A Permitting Base Checklist for Data Centers and Power Plants
June 02, 2026 —
Michael S. McDonough, Stephen J. Humes & Stacey C. Wright - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogThere is a lot of talk these days about “license to operate” for data centers, meaning management of the relationships with stakeholders and broader communities concerning both the benefits and adverse consequences of locating a facility in a particular locale. Here, we are speaking of “license to operate” more literally—namely, the legal and regulatory permitting and approval requirements for a privately owned data center whether by itself or colocated with a power generating plant.
Our Base Checklist includes generally and potentially applicable permitting requirements for development and operation, using California as an example. (Taking legal authority Frank Sinatra out of context, “If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere.”) The actual requirements for a given facility would depend, in part, on local law, including planning and zoning laws and plans, and the environment of the site. Just as examples, additional permitting and mitigation requirements might apply if sensitive receptors are located nearby (e.g., noise mitigation for residential dwellings), if sensitive and protected biological resources (e.g., jurisdictional waters and/or protected species) would be impacted, or if the present or former land uses require additional measures (e.g., hazardous materials remediation, mitigation for conversion of prime farmland, or protection of cultural resources). The scope of permit requirements would ultimately be determined by the applicable regulatory agencies and by the lead and responsible agencies under the applicable state environmental land use regime—in our reference case here, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. McDonough, Pillsbury,
Stephen J. Humes, Pillsbury and
Stacey C. Wright, Pillsbury
Mr. McDonough may be contacted at michael.mcdonough@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Humes may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Wright may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com
Read the full story...
Flatiron Said Disputed Concrete Mix Cost Millions on Large Caltrans Project
June 22, 2026 —
Elaine Silver & Richard Korman - Engineering News-RecordFor awhile in 2023, part of the California Dept. of Transportation's (Caltrans) Fix 50 HOV lane and resurfacing project in Sacramento itself needed to be fixed.
Reprinted courtesy of
Elaine Silver, Engineering News-Record and
Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com
Read the full story...
Turnover Traps for Community Associations: Investigate First, Release Claims Later
April 14, 2026 —
Nicholas B. Vargo - Ball Janik LLPTurnover of a community association from developer control to owner control is a uniquely vulnerable moment. Developers are increasingly presenting Florida condominium and homeowners’ associations with “standard” settlement or release agreements at turnover, often being framed as routine steps to finalize the transition of control. In reality, these agreements can have sweeping consequences, including the release of construction-defect claims before the association has conducted any meaningful independent evaluation.
The developer has years of project knowledge and access to plans, subcontractors, and internal records. The newly elected board is just beginning to organize, obtain documents, and understand the property’s condition. Many defects, especially those involving roofing, waterproofing, windows, or structural components, are latent and not yet visible. Signing a release at this stage means the association is making a binding decision under conditions of uncertainty, without full information, to release all future potential claims.
Over the last few years, there has been a rise in reports of developers offering a packaged deal: they agree to complete certain repairs, often minor punch-list or cosmetic items, and to “forgive” an alleged financial deficit (often around $50,000) supposedly owed by the association from the developer-control period. In exchange, the association is asked to sign a broad release covering all claims, including known and unknown construction defects. To a new HOA board that received their community with limited operating and reserve funds, they are left with a difficult decision to either accept the developer’s offer or assess their owners to pay this alleged debt.
These agreements are occasionally presented through community management companies, which may describe them as “standard” or "routine.” Whether due to misunderstanding or influence from the developer, management companies can unintentionally reinforce the idea that signing is expected. Any recommendation provided to HOAs about whether to sign these releases could open community management to liability down the road. The best practice for both associations and community managers is to refer any agreements to be reviewed by general counsel for the association.
The following two case studies illustrate the real-world consequences:
Case Study One: A newly transitioned board relies on its management company to negotiate with the developer-builder to resolve irrigation issues, pond concerns, and signage deficiencies, along with forgiving an asserted financial shortfall. In exchange, the board signs a broad release covering all claims, including latent defects.
Within a year, several punch-list items remain incomplete, and more serious issues arise. When the association demands completion, the developer delays, prompting the association to seek advice on how to enforce the settlement agreement. The association hires counsel to hold the developer responsible for both the previously agreed-upon items and newly identified construction defects. However, when the association brings claims against the developer, the developer points to the release of all potential construction defects in the community. Thus, the only remaining remedy is limited to enforcement of the specific punch-list terms. The community, still relatively new, has no viable claims against the developer-builder for the construction defects. With warranties expired and the release, the association must fund repairs through special assessments, despite defects that would otherwise have been actionable.
Case Study Two: A community is presented with a similar agreement as above. The management company encourages execution, suggesting it is standard and even telling the board to “name your price.” The developer also pressures the newly elected board to sign.
Instead of signing, the board consults with their attorney. Counsel advises the board not to sign the release and recommends further investigation. Engineers are retained and identify early indicators of broader issues, including stucco cracking, water intrusion, and irrigation deficiencies. Based on this information, the association declines to sign the release. Subsequent evaluation reveals potentially significant construction-defect claims, allowing the community to pursue recovery that would have been lost under the proposed agreement.
These scenarios underscore a fundamental point: signing a release at turnover is not an administrative formality—it is a major legal decision. Board members act in a fiduciary capacity on behalf of their community, and their decisions can bind all current and future owners. At turnover, an association’s right is to investigate and pursue claims. Preserving that right until a full and independent evaluation is completed is not adversarial—it is responsible governance.
Accordingly, associations should retain independent evaluations of the property and consult qualified legal counsel before signing any “standard” agreements, especially ones involving a release of future claims.
Nicholas B. Vargo is a partner in Ball Janik LLP’s Construction Practice Group. He may be reached at nvargo@balljanik.com.
