My Current Love-Hate Relationship with AI
June 08, 2026 —
Garret D. Murai - California Construction Law BlogIt’s early in the relationship, I know. But still, there are some things that bug me. Yet, I also know that it’s a relationship in which leaving is not an option, and even if I could, it’s not to the point where it’s so bad that I would do so. So, if you would, let me gripe a bit.
While there’s been much discussion about AI and, at least in my neck of the woods, a fair amount of discussion about how lawyers can, should, and must use AI or risk becoming discarded into the dustbin of history, much less has been written about clients’ use of AI.
Increasingly, I’ve gotten the sense that my clients are using AI. For example, I had a client ask for confirmation that if he disagreed with an administrative decision that he could file a writ of mandate, and if so, whether that deadline was 30, 60 or 90 days after the administrative decision. The answer to the first question was yes, and as to the second question, the answer was 90 days. This was from a client who, smart as he is, probably didn’t know this off the top of his head.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret D. Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
New Executive Order on AI Innovation and Security: Key Takeaways for the Construction Industry
June 15, 2026 —
Richard R. Volack & Denis Serkin - Peckar & Abramson, PCOn June 2, 2026, President Trump signed an Executive Order titled “Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security.” At its core, the Order is a cybersecurity and national-security measure rather than a broad regulation of how private companies develop or use AI. It directs federal agencies to harden government systems against AI-enabled cyber threats, establishes voluntary frameworks for collaboration between the federal government and the AI and critical-infrastructure sectors, and strengthens criminal enforcement against the malicious use of AI.
Notably, the Order expressly disclaims any intent to create a “mandatory governmental licensing, preclearance, or permitting” regime for the “development, publication, release, or distribution of new AI models.” Instead, the Executive Order seeks to “promote AI innovation and security” by working with the private sector to modernize government and private-sector information systems and harden them against external threats, protect intellectual property from exploitation or theft, and cultivate American AI capabilities.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard R. Volack, Peckar & Abramson, PC and
Denis Serkin, Peckar & Abramson, PC
Mr. Volack may be contacted at rvolack@pecklaw.com
Mr. Serkin may be contacted at dserkin@pecklaw.com
Read the full story...
Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Expands with New Office in Foxborough, Massachusetts
June 08, 2026 —
Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Foxborough, MA — April 1st, 2026— Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. (SDV), a national law firm focused exclusively on representing policyholders in insurance coverage disputes, is pleased to announce the opening of its new office in Foxborough, Massachusetts. The expansion marks another milestone in the firm’s continued growth and deepens SDV’s ability to serve clients across the region.
The new location strengthens SDV’s presence in Massachusetts and expands the firm’s capacity to support both existing and anticipated client needs in an increasingly complex insurance landscape.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Las Vegas Partner Jeffrey Saab and Team Leader D. Ryan Efros Secure a $0.00 Settlement on a Multimillion-Dollar Construction Defect Case!
April 14, 2026 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPPartner
Jeffrey Saab and Team Leader
D. Ryan Efros’ client was a construction supervisor on a palatial mansion. The homeowners claimed millions of dollars in damages and asserted the client was a general contractor (GC) and so responsible for the alleged defects. Jeff and Ryan took more than 15 depositions, reinforcing their trial strategy theme: that the client was not a GC, but Plaintiffs were. They secured significant concessions from Plaintiffs, pressed Plaintiffs’ own negligent construction choices, and made the risk of trying the case intolerable. On the eve of trial, Plaintiffs backed down, settling out Jeff and Ryan’s client for $0.00.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Insurer’s Federal Suit Dismissed in Favor of Insured’s State Suit
April 14, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court granted the insured’s motion to dismiss the insurer’s federal suit for declaratory judgment because the insured filed a more complete action in state court. Church Mut. Ins. Co. v. Elmwood Baptist Church, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 259762 (S.D. W.V. Dec. 16, 2025).
Elmwood purchased a property policy from Church Mutual Insurance Company. After the roof of Elmwood’s property collapsed, the parties disputed the amount Church Mutual owed to Elmwood.
Church Mutual filed suit in federal district court asking for a declaration that the policy was “void ab initio,’ or, alternatively, that Church had fully compensated Elmwood for its loss.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
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.
Damage from Frozen Pipes Excluded from Coverage
March 31, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiApplying Texas law, the federal district court found there was no coverage for damage to the insured’s commercial building due to the bursting of frozen pipes. Barona v. State Farm Lloyds, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 257379 (S.D. Texas Dec. 12, 2025).
Freezing weather froze Barona’s plumbing fixtures, causing significant water damage to the commercial property when the plumbing eventually expanded and burst. State Farm sent an inspector. During the inspection, Barona stated that he turned off the heat to his building but did not shut off the water supply or drain the pipes. State Farm denied covered based on the policy’s exclusion for frozen plumbing.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Standing When It Comes to Real Property Owned by a Trust
February 23, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIt is not uncommon for property to be owned in the name of the trust as part of an estate planning agenda. In construction, improvements are made all the time to real property owned in the name of a trust or later transferred to a trust for estate planning purposes.
In a recent case, the question became that if the property is owned by the trust does only the trust have standing to file the lawsuit. In this case, homeowners, in their individual capacities, sued a flooring contractor for defective work; however, prior to the lawsuit, the homeowners deeded the home (which would include the flooring in the home) to a revocable trust. The plaintiffs, though, were the trustees of the revocable trust and the settlors of the trust.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
