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
Lost in Translation: AEC Tech’s Missing Role
May 12, 2026 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessI once visited a construction site where the contractor’s headquarters had commissioned a tech company to build an on-site quality-inspection application. The developer had admitted to the site engineer that they had never set foot on a construction site before. The engineer showed me what he was actually using: his own phone camera and an Excel sheet. The new app did not map to how work actually happened on site.
This is not an isolated story. The vendor builds something technically coherent but operationally disconnected. The client, somewhere up the chain, had fallen in love with the idea of the solution before anyone had built an honest business case for it.
The result is a tool that gets demonstrated at a board meeting but isn’t used in the field.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
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...
The Single Source of Truth in Construction Projects: Reality or Myth?
March 24, 2026 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessThe idea of a single source of truth has been a fundamental part of the digital vision in the AEC industry for many years. From centralized CAD storage to BIM collaboration platforms and, more recently, Common Data Environments, the goal stays the same. Project teams want a reliable place where everyone can access the latest information.
The phrase “single source of truth” comes from database and information management practices in the IT world, where the goal was to maintain one authoritative record of data and eliminate data redundancy. As the AEC industry began adopting digital tools, the same idea was applied to project information and workflows.
Despite decades of technological progress, the question remains whether “one ring that rules them all” can actually be implemented in real construction projects.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
Substantial Evidence of Flood Loss is Not a Substitute for Required Proof of Loss
April 20, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court found that the insurer properly denied the insured’s claim for loss due to flood because a proof of loss was never submitted. Bay Haven at Coco Bay Condominium Association, Inc. v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6847 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 14, 2026).
Bay Haven managed several condo buildings. When Hurricane Ian hit, it caused significant flood damage to these properties. Bay Haven held federal flood insurance policies through Hartford under “Write-Your-Own” policies. This meant Hartford was essentially a fiscal agent that managed policies and handled claims but paid them using federal funds.
Following the storm, FEMA extended the usual 60-day deadline for filing a proof of loss to one year, or until September 28, 2023. Bay Haven did not submit its proofs of loss until November 2023. FEMA granted an extension but only for the specific amounts in the November requests. Hartford did not waive the 60-day proof of loss requirement for any other proof of loss. Hartford paid the amounts reflected in the November submissions.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Two Snell & Wilmer Attorneys Selected as 2026 San Diego Super Lawyers Rising Stars
May 14, 2026 —
Snell & WilmerSAN DIEGO – Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that two attorneys in the San Diego office have been selected for inclusion in the
2026 San Diego Super Lawyers Rising Stars publication.
Rising Stars is a listing of lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. To be eligible for inclusion, a candidate must be either 40 years old or younger or in practice for 10 years or less. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research and peer nominations, with no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state named to the Rising Stars list.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Snell & Wilmer
Builders Oppose Senate Housing Bill Over Investor Ban Provision
March 24, 2026 —
Katy O'Donnell - BloombergA powerful group representing the nation’s home builders is coming out against the most significant housing legislation in more than a decade over a provision negotiated by the White House that would restrict institutional investors from purchasing single-family homes.
The builders’ objection could imperil the bill’s chances of becoming law, even as leaders of both parties are desperate to show they are doing something to alleviate voters’
cost-of-living concerns. The Senate voted 90-8 to clear a procedural hurdle for the bill on Wednesday, with a vote on final passage expected early next week.
The inclusion of the investor ban in a broader housing bill was key to getting the White House on board,
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott, a Republican from South Carolina, told reporters Tuesday.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Contract Void Ab Initio: Key Insights into the KBR vs. Corps of Engineers Affirmative DefenseSome Work Cannot be Included in a Miller Act ClaimTexas exclusions j(5) and j(6).CARB Issues Proposed Climate Disclosure RegulationsCourt Upholds Denial of Collapse Coverage Where Building Still StandsTexas Jury Awards $5.3 Million to Company Defamed by Union: Could it work in Pennsylvania?Is the Obsession With Recordable Injury Rates a Deadly Safety Distraction?Living on The Edge: The Unacknowledged Delay/AccelerationCal/OSHA’s Toolbox Has Significantly Expanded: A Look At Senate Bill 606Traub Lieberman Partner Bradley T. Guldalian Wins Summary JudgmentCoverage for Injury to Insured’s Employee Not CoveredUnderstanding the California Consumer Privacy ActConstruction Injuries Under the Privette Doctrine. An Electrifying, but Perhaps Not Particularly Shocking, Story . . .Illinois Court of Appeals Addresses What It Means to “Reside” in Property for Purposes of CoverageSeventh Circuit, With an Assist From the Illinois Supreme Court, Finds That “Pollution Exclusion” Bars Coverage For Emissions Allowed Under Regulatory PermitFlood Sublimits Do Not Apply to Loss Caused by Named WindstormSureties do not Issue Bonds Risk-Free to the Bond-PrincipalSan Francisco Law Firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman Hired New PartnerNomos LLP Partners Recognized in Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Lists Certifying Claim Under Contract Disputes ActConstruction Jobs Expected to Rise in Post-Hurricane RebuildingColorado Construction-Defects Reform Law Attempt Expected in 2015Google’s Biggest Moonshot Is Its Search for a Carbon-Free FuturePulling Off the Band-AidGilroy Homeowners Sue over Leaky HomesInsured's Experts Excluded, But Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment DeniedLeveraging the 50-State Initiative, Connecticut and Maine Team Secure Full Dismissal of Coverage Claim for Catastrophic Property LossFederal Court Reiterates Broad Duty to Defend in Additional Insured Cases25 Years of West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect SeminarContractor Turns Former Sears Into Interim High School Following Palisades WildfiresRetainage: What Contractors Need to Know and Helpful Strategies“I Didn’t Sign That!” – Applicability of Waivers of Subrogation to Non-Signatory Third PartiesBuilder Waits too Long to Dispute Contract in Construction Defect Claim Brooklyn’s Industry City to Get $1 Billion ModernizationNIST Florida Condo Collapse Probe Develops Dozens of HypothesesStrategic Investigation and Thorough Advocacy Leads to Dismissal and Fee Recovery for National BuilderDenver Parking Garage Roof Collapses Crushing VehiclesJudge Rejects Extrapolation, Harmon Tower to Remain StandingHome Building Mergers and Acquisitions 2014 PredictionsIntroducing Nomos LLP!Stuck in Seattle: The Aggravating Adventures of a Gigantic Tunnel DrillClient Alert: Court Settles Conflict between CCP and Rules of Court Regarding Demurrer Deadline Following Amended ComplaintPennsylvania Court Extends Construction Defect Protections to Subsequent BuyersBest Lawyers Recognizes Twelve White and Williams LawyersBKV Barnett, LLC v. Electric Drilling Technologies, LLC: Analyzing the Impact of Colorado’s Anti-Indemnification StatuteWATCH: 2023 Construction Economic Update and ForecastCalifornia Enacts New Claims Resolution Process for Public Works ProjectsScary Movie: Theatre Developer Axed By Court of Appeal In Prevailing Wage Determination ChallengeProperty Owner’s Defense Goes Up in Smoke in Careless Smoking CasePatagonia Will Start Paying for Homeowners' Solar PanelsKahana Feld Announces Key Partner Additions Coast to CoastThe Credibility of Your Expert (Including Your Delay Expert) Matters in Construction DisputesConnecticut Court Clarifies a Limit on Payment Bond Claims for Public ProjectsCLB Recommends Extensive Hawaii Contractor License ChangesFrom Dark Data to Building IntelligenceTop 10 Take-Aways: the ABA Forum's 2024 Mid-Winter MeetingContractor Manslaughter? Safety Shortcuts Are Not Worth ItConstruction Litigation Roundup: “Sudden Death”Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (5/22/24) – Federal Infrastructure Money, Hotel Development Pipelines, and Lab Space ConstructionLoan Modifications Due to COVID-19 Pandemic: FDIC Answers CARES Act FAQsWarranty of Workmanship and Habitability Cannot Be Disclaimed or Waived Under Any CircumstanceSan Francisco Sues Over Sinking Millennium TowerBuilding Bold and Sustainable: A Talk with James O’CallaghanD&O Insurer Must Cover Mortgage Broker’s $15 Million Settlement of Alleged False Claims Act ViolationsKY Mining Accident Not a Covered Occurrence Under Commercial General Liability PolicySales of New U.S. Homes Fell in February to Five-Month Low
