End of an (Endangerment) Era
February 23, 2026 —
Sukhmani K. Singh, Christopher P. Colyer & Sean M. Sherlock - Snell & WilmerOn February 12, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the repeal of the 2009 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding and the elimination of all federal GHG emission standards for motor vehicles and engines.
1 The EPA characterized the action as the “single largest deregulatory action in U.S. history.”
2 This development marks a fundamental shift in federal climate policy under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and is expected to trigger immediate and extensive litigation.
In Massachusetts v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court held that GHGs qualify as “air pollutants” under the CAA and that the EPA must determine whether emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare under CAA Section 202(a).
3 Following this decision, on December 7, 2009, the EPA issued two findings. First, the EPA classified six different GHGs as threatening public health and welfare. Second, the EPA determined that emissions from new motor vehicles contribute to that endangerment.
4 Although the findings themselves imposed no direct regulatory requirements, they served as the legal predicate for GHG emission standards for light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles, and later for other CAA programs affecting statutory sources. In 2012, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the Endangerment Finding and related regulations.
5
Reprinted courtesy of
Sukhmani K. Singh, Snell & Wilmer,
Christopher P. Colyer, Snell & Wilmer and
Sean M. Sherlock, Snell & Wilmer
Ms. Singh may be contacted at ssingh@swlaw.com
Mr. Colyer may be contacted at ccolyer@swlaw.com
Mr. Sherlock may be contacted at ssherlock@swlaw.com
Read the full story...
Presumption of Prejudice Applies to All Affirmative Defenses Regarding Insured’s Failure to Comply with Post-Loss Policy Conditions
June 23, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updatesn a recent property insurance coverage dispute, an issue on appeal pertained to the “prejudice” jury instruction associated with the insured’s failure to comply with post-loss policy conditions. The trial court found that the prejudice only pertained to prompt notice and not other post-loss policy conditions. This was reversed on appeal as prejudice applied to ALL the post loss policy conditions that the insured failed to comply with, not just the prompt notice requirement. The prejudice presumption applies to all affirmative defenses regarding an insured’s failure to comply with post-loss policy conditions.
Consider this discussion when dealing with an insurer raising prejudice as an affirmative defense to do an insured’s failure to comply with post-loss policy conditions, and the associated burdens of proof:
On appeal, [the insurer] contends the trial court erred by instructing the jury that the presumption of prejudice was inapplicable to all of its post-loss obligation defenses except prompt notice. We agree.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Moving in Before Substantial Completion? The Risks of Early Owner Occupancy
March 24, 2026 —
Sydney Koby - ConsensusDocsIntroduction
On many construction projects, particularly large projects facing schedule pressure, owners may begin occupying or using portions of the project before the work reaches substantial completion. This is often due to operational needs, phased turnover, or market demands that drive owners to take possession of all or part of a project while construction activities are ongoing. While early occupancy may seem practical, it can blur the lines of responsibility between owner and contractor and can create significant legal and practical complications.
These disputes are especially common on large, complex projects where punch list work, system commissioning, and closeout activities overlap with owner use. Without clear documentation and carefully drafted contract provisions, early occupancy can undermine an owner’s ability to enforce completion requirements while simultaneously exposing the contractor to claims of delay, inefficiency, or interference.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sydney Koby, Jones WalkerMs. Koby may be contacted at
skoby@joneswalker.com
Insufficient Notice of Commencement and Construction Lien Rights
August 03, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen a party is preserving their construction lien rights, the party will look to the recorded Notice of Commencement. This is the recorded document that provides the lienor with the information for purposes of preserving construction lien rights. A Notice to Owner company will typically rely on the Notice of Commencement to serve Notices to Owners from lower tiers not in contract with the owner. However, when it comes to preparing the lien, a lienor should look beyond just the Notice of Commencement and also look to the property appraiser’s website as a backstop.
In a recent case, a window company had the homeowner sign the Notice of Commencement and then filled in the information. The company naturally did this for the convenience of the homeowner that probably was unfamiliar with the Notice of Commencement process. Regardless, information in the Notice of Commencement was inaccurate. It failed to include all the real property owners. Thus, when a payment dispute arose and a construction lien was prepared, it did not identify all of the real property owners. All of the real property owners were added later during the pendency of a lien foreclosure lawsuit. The trial court denied the lien because of the defective / insufficient Notice of Commencement — the lienor assumed the risk of error by filling out the information in the Notice of Commencement. The trial court further denied the lien holding that because the work did not commence within 90 days of the Notice of Commencement, the Notice of Commencement is void.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
AI Adoption in Construction: A UK Practitioner’s View
April 20, 2026 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessI recently talked with
Chris Brady, an AI adoption consultant based in Birmingham, UK, who has spent 18 years working in construction. Two years ago, he began integrating AI into his work with contractors and SMEs, initially as an add-on service, and it has since become his main business.
Chris now runs
Metrix, an AI consultancy focused on UK construction companies, alongside two other ventures: Trade Upskill, an education platform for construction professionals, and ctrldash.ai, a compliance-automation SaaS for construction SMEs, both of which are soon to launch.
What struck me most in our conversation was how grounded his approach is, built on years of direct industry experience rather than arriving from outside with a technology solution looking for a problem.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Prevents Coverage for Collapse
April 27, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court granting summary judgment to the insurer after agreeing that the policy’s anti-concurrent causation clause barred coverage. Lido Hospitality, Inc. v. AIX Specialty Ins. Co., 2026 Iii. App. Unpub. LEXIS 133 (Ill. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2026).
One of the brick veneer walls of the Lido Motel collapsed during a windstorm. Lido reported the loss it its insurer, AIX. AIX investigated and determined that the brick veneer collapsed due to pervasive wear and tear and corrosion of the underlying infrastructure that secured the veneer- specifically the components that anchored or tied the masonry veneer to the underlying wooden substrate.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Jurisdiction Over Foreign Manufacturers in Construction Litigation
May 14, 2026 —
Timothy J. Repass & Miki J. Saito - Wood Smith Henning BermanA recent decision from the Washington Court of Appeals provides important guidance on personal jurisdiction over foreign product manufacturers in construction and infrastructure litigation. In King County v. Aquatherm GmbH, No. 85572-7-I (Wash.Ct. App.Div.I)(unpublished), the court addressed whether a German manufacturer could be sued in Washington for alleged defects in piping used in major public infrastructure projects. The ruling offers a detailed, fact-driven roadmap for how Washington courts evaluate jurisdiction over foreign manufacturers operating through layered distribution networks. It also reflects a broader trend toward focusing on real-world commercial conduct rather than formal corporate structure.
Background of the Case
King County sued after widespread failures in polypropylene piping installed at the King County Correctional Facility. The pipe, manufactured by Aquatherm GmbH in Germany, was marketed, distributed, and installed through a network of U.S.-based entities. Following a six-week trial, the jury returned a verdict exceeding $18 million on claims under the Washington Product Liability Act and Consumer Protection Act. Aquatherm challenged, among other things, the trial court's exercise of personal jurisdiction.
Reprinted courtesy of
Timothy J. Repass, Wood Smith Henning Berman and
Miki J. Saito, Wood Smith Henning Berman
Mr. Repass may be contacted at trepass@wshblaw.com
Ms. Saito may be contacted at msaito@wshblaw.com
Read the full story...
Anomaly in Adding a Third-Party Claimant to a Liability Insurance Coverage Dispute
May 05, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn an insurance coverage lawsuit seeking declaratory relief, an insurer sued the third-party claimant. The insurer was seeking a declaration that there was no coverage, which naturally would impact the third-party claimant. The insured did not respond to the lawsuit and the insurer moved for a default judgment which was objected to by the third-party claimant. The trial court granted a final judgment in favor of the insurer, which prompted an appeal from the third-party claimant because the final judgment impacts its rights to coverage if it obtains a judgment against the insured.
The appellate court reversed but please take a look at this Court’s discussion on the issue of an insurer adding a third-party claimant to a coverage lawsuit when then the third-party cannot pursue a direct claim against the insurer until it obtains a settlement or judgment against the insured. It presents an interesting argument and counter-point for a third-party claimant that is added to the coverage lawsuit which has implications if it obtains a judgment against the insured:
This case involves an apparent anomaly in Florida law. It is well-established that third-party claimants injured by an insured’s negligence have a right as third-party beneficiaries to payment from the insured’s insurance proceeds. It is equally well-established that the third-party claimants’ rights in this regard do not accrue unless and until they obtain a verdict or settlement against the insured. A quick review of this law is helpful at this point.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
