When Arbitrators Overreach: Utah Supreme Court Trims an Award Built on an Unpled Claim
November 02, 2026 —
Tyson J. Prisbrey & Mark O. Morris - Snell & WilmerConstruction industry participants have long favored arbitration to resolve disputes, prizing its speed, confidentiality, and finality over traditional litigation. That finality, however, depends on arbitrators staying within the bounds of what the parties actually put before them. In RV Holdings 4, LLC, et al. v. Standard Fiber Investors, LLC, the Utah Supreme Court issued a rare rebuke of an arbitration award, holding that the arbitrator exceeded their authority by awarding damages on a claim the prevailing party never submitted for decision.
The dispute arose from a management-fee relationship between Standard Fiber, a bedding manufacturer, and several affiliated “Ridgeview” entities that provided financial and accounting oversight services. After Standard Fiber stopped paying management fees in 2020, the parties pursued their claims in arbitration. Ridgeview’s arbitration demand sought recovery under two specific theories: that a 2006 management services agreement remained in effect, and alternatively, that an oral “50/50 Agreement” entitled it to a share of fees paid to an affiliated entity. Notably, Ridgeview never asserted a claim for breach of a separate 2014 fee arrangement, and affirmatively disavowed reliance on it. The arbitrator rejected both of Ridgeview’s submitted theories and instead awarded Ridgeview $725,000 based on that unpled 2014 agreement. The district court confirmed the award, concluding that the arbitrator’s decision was rationally related to the parties’ arguments, including evidence Standard Fiber itself introduced about the 2014 arrangement.
Reprinted courtesy of
Tyson J. Prisbrey, Snell & Wilmer and
Mark O. Morris, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Prisbrey may be contacted at tprisbrey@swlaw.com
Mr. Morris may be contacted at mmorris@swlaw.com
Read the full story...
D.C. Circuit Upholds EPA’s CERCLA Hazardous-Substance Designations for PFAS as State-Law Settlements Highlight Expanding Liability Landscape
September 15, 2026 —
Ashleigh K. Myers, Amanda G. Halter, Jillian Marullo & Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogOn August 18, 2026, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the 2024 designation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund). (See Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. v. EPA, No. 24-1193 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 18, 2026).)
The decision leaves EPA’s PFOA and PFOS hazardous substance designations in place and provides guidance on the scope of EPA’s authority to make future hazardous substances designations under CERCLA Section 102(a). The decision also likely resolves a challenge to the rule that has spanned two presidential administrations. After taking office, the Trump administration had obtained an abeyance of the litigation challenging the Biden-era rule while EPA reconsidered its position. In September 2025, EPA informed the court that it had decided to retain the designations, while signaling that it would work with Congress and industry to address CERCLA liability concerns for “passive receivers.” The litigation then resumed, with the current Administration defending the rule.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ashleigh K. Myers, Pillsbury,
Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury,
Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury and
Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Read the full story...
Federal Court Strikes Down New York’s Climate Superfund Act: What It Means for the “Polluter Pays” Movement
September 28, 2026 —
Amanda G. Halter, Ashleigh K. Myers & Jillian Marullo - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogA federal judge in the Northern District of New York has struck down New York’s
Climate Change Superfund Act, ruling that the “polluter pays” climate law is preempted by federal law and “simply beyond the limits of state law.” The court concluded that the Clean Air Act (CAA) does not authorize New York’s compensation scheme, which calculates liability based on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions attributable to worldwide fossil fuel extraction and refining. It separately held that any cost-recovery demand against a foreign producer would be preempted under the constitutional foreign affairs doctrine, which limits state intrusion into matters committed predominantly to the federal government. The court directed the parties to file a status report by September 14, leaving the form of further relief unresolved. In practical terms, the court has decided that the Act is preempted and cannot be enforced but has not yet determined the precise terms of its final order, including whether to formally enjoin its enforcement.
The
decision in West Virginia v. James, Case No. 1:25-cv-00168 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2026), issued by Chief U.S. District Judge Brenda K. Sannes, who was appointed by President Obama, marks the first judicial invalidation of a state climate superfund statute and carries significant implications for the
climate superfund landscape and the three remaining
lawsuits challenging these laws.
Reprinted courtesy of
Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury,
Ashleigh K. Myers, Pillsbury and
Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury
Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com
Read the full story...
Not All Warranty E-Mails Are Notices of Claim
October 20, 2026 —
David McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation BlogThere is a frustrating tendency in some Colorado construction defect litigation to treat virtually any written complaint about construction work as a statutory notice of claim under the Construction Defect Action Reform Act (“CDARA”). An e-mail complaining about cracked concrete. A request for warranty service. A message asking a builder to come inspect a leaking window. Years later, when the homeowner faces a statute-of-limitations defense, these routine communications are suddenly characterized as statutory notices of claim, with the convenient consequence that an otherwise untimely lawsuit becomes timely.
Enough is enough.
A warranty complaint is not a statutory notice of claim simply because a homeowner complains about construction. Courts and arbitrators should stop treating the two as interchangeable.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
A Green Light for Housing? What Executive Order 14394 Means for Your Next Project
May 26, 2026 —
Bennett Houck, Miranda Martinez & Byron Sarhangian - Snell & WilmerOn March 13, 2026, President Trump signed Executive Order 14394, “Removing Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Home Construction” (the “Order”). The Order directs federal agencies to reduce regulatory burdens on residential development, streamline environmental permitting, and encourage state and local governments to adopt housing-friendly policies.
The Order includes several key provisions that developers and homebuilders should be aware of moving forward.
Key Provisions
The Order targets four main areas:
1. Federal Environmental Regulations
First, it directs the Secretary of the Army and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to revise permitting standards, including stormwater permits, wetlands permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and related construction-site requirements. The Order also targets energy-efficiency mandates for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) financed housing. For developers and homebuilders, these revisions could reduce project delays and compliance costs associated with stormwater management, wetlands mitigation, and energy-efficiency upgrades, expenses that often add significant time and cost to residential development projects.
Reprinted courtesy of
Bennett Houck, Snell & Wilmer,
Miranda Martinez, Snell & Wilmer and
Byron Sarhangian, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Houck may be contacted at bhouck@swlaw.com
Ms. Martinez may be contacted at mimartinez@swlaw.com
Mr. Sarhangian may be contacted at bsarhangian@swlaw.com
Read the full story...
A Nuclear Power Hangover: Controversies Plague New York's Indian Point Plant Cleanup
November 02, 2026 —
Richard Korman - Engineering News-RecordMichael Tromblee was in for a late night. Of the many after-business-hour duties he performs as superintendent of the Hendrik Hudson school district about 25 miles north of New York City, attending meetings of a board overseeing cleanup of the Indian Point nuclear power plant, located in Buchanan, N.Y., was an infrequent but necessary chore. Since the plant shut down in 2021 and gradually stopped paying taxes to support the school district's students, between one-fourth and one-third of its annual budget funding vanished, and state transitional funds provided to bridge that gap will expire after the 2027-28 school year. Last year, Tromblee described the lost power plant tax revenue, about $25 million annually, as “a financial hit that no school district is built to withstand.”
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Richard Korman, Engineering News-RecordMr. Korman may be contacted at
kormanr@enr.com
What Massachusetts Contractors and Developers Can Learn from Cannistraro v. Columbia Construction
July 13, 2026 —
Anthony LaPlaca & Luke Marston - The Construction SeytIntroduction
On June 26, 2026 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its decision in J.C. Cannistraro, LLC v. Columbia Construction Co.—a holding that sits at the intersection of Prompt Pay Act compliance and the Massachusetts Arbitration Act.
[1]
Most already know that the Massachusetts Prompt Pay Act (PPA) imposes strict timing and certification requirements for rejecting payment applications and proposed change orders on projects valued at $3 million or more. Most notably, the PPA requires the paying party to give the payee written notice of its approval or rejection of progress applications and proposed changes within 15 days of receipt, which notice must include a “factual and contractual basis for the rejection” and must be “certified as made in good faith.”
[2] In the absence of a timely certified notice, payment is “deemed to be approved” unless the payor properly rejects payment before it comes due.
[3]
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony LaPlaca, Seyfarth Shaw LLP and
Luke Marston, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Mr. LaPlaca may be contacted at alaplaca@seyfarth.com
Mr. Marston may be contacted at lmarston@seyfarth.com
Read the full story...
Modular Construction’s Hidden Risk: Where Things Go Wrong Between the Factory and the Field
June 15, 2026 —
Jack Mayo - ConsensusDocsIntroduction
As modular and prefabricated construction methods are increasingly adopted, so too are the potential challenges that come with them. The appeal is straightforward: faster timelines, controlled fabrication environments, and reduced on-site labor demands. But the risks that accompany these benefits are often less clear—and, in many cases, poorly defined.
For example, what happens when a prefabricated component is delayed past its installation window? Who is responsible for a defect discovered inside a sealed, installed module? What happens to warranty obligations when a prefabricated component must be modified on site?
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jack Mayo, Jones Walker LLPMr. Mayo may be contacted at
jmayo@joneswalker.com
