Differing Site Conditions Claim Requires a Misrepresentation
May 14, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIf you are entertaining a
differing site conditions claim, consider this Third District Court of Appeals case from the mid-90s.
In Hendry Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 648 So.2d 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), a contractor was hired by Dade County to demolish the old Rickenbacker Causeway in Miami. The original 1941 plans of the causeway were made available to contractors. The lowest bidding contractor that was awarded the project based its bid “on its conclusion that the pilings supporting the old bridge were made of concrete.” Hendry, supra at 141. The contractor based this conclusion on the original plans, its visual observation, and experience.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
FERC Issues Show-Cause Orders: Impacts on California and Other Regional Power Markets
July 13, 2026 —
Stephen J. Humes, Alicia M. McKnight & Jason Drogin Atwood - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogAt an open meeting on June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued show-cause orders under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act to the six FERC-jurisdictional RTOs/ISOs—PJM Interconnection, ISO New England, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Southwest Power Pool, New York Independent System Operator and California Independent System Operator—along with their transmission owners (TOs), directing each region and the TOs to justify or revise tariff provisions governing how data centers and other large loads connect to and receive transmission service from the grid. These show-cause orders will impact several power markets across the country, including California.
Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen J. Humes, Pillsbury,
Alicia M. McKnight, Pillsbury and
Jason Drogin Atwood, Pillsbury
Mr. Humes may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. McKnight may be contacted at alicia.mcknight@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Atwood may be contacted at jason.atwood@pillsburylaw.com
Read the full story...
Structuring Water Resilience for Data Center Development: Water Rights, Reuse Incentives, and Emerging Disclosure Risk
March 10, 2026 —
Ashleigh Myers, Jillian Marullo & Jason Drogin Atwood - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogAs AI-driven data center development accelerates, developers, communities and regulators are increasingly focused on water demand—both the volume required and the sources from which that water will be drawn. While industry attention has largely centered on electricity procurement and grid impacts, the availability and legal entitlement to a firm water supply has become equally material to siting, permitting and community acceptance. Particularly as surface and groundwater supplies become increasingly constrained and new projects are sited in regions experiencing tighter hydrologic conditions or growth-related supply constraints, project teams are increasingly integrating water supply analysis into early-stage development to address issues that can materially affect schedule, financing and long-term operations.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ashleigh Myers, Pillsbury,
Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury and
Jason Drogin Atwood, Pillsbury
Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Atwood may be contacted at jason.atwood@pillsburylaw.com
Read the full story...
Midwest Team Secures Resolution of Matter for Homeowners’ Association Client, Recovery of Attorneys’ Fees
February 10, 2026 —
Lewis Brisbois NewsroomKansas City/Wichita Partner Alan L. Rupe and Kansas City Associate Delaney McCoy recently achieved a victory on behalf of their client, a homeowners’ association that was sued after denying a solar panel application. The plaintiff homeowners challenged the association’s decision in court, and after extensive—and costly—litigation, the court ultimately determined that the dispute was not yet ripe for judicial review.
With that threshold issue resolved, the parties were able to work collaboratively to address the solar panel matter itself. But one significant question remained: whether the association was entitled to recover its legal fees under the declaration, despite the American Rule, which generally requires each party to bear its own costs. The client felt understandably taken advantage of because this issue could—and should—have been resolved without litigation. Considerable time and resources were diverted from the community for the advantage of a single household, so the Lewis Brisbois team continued to advocate for the association’s contractual right to recover fees. After oral argument, the Court agreed, enforcing the fee‑shifting provisions in the governing documents and ruling in favor of the homeowners’ association.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
Federal Court Highlights the Strategic Value of Additional Insured Coverage
June 22, 2026 —
Michael S. Levine - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogA recent decision from the District of Maryland underscores a recurring—but often underutilized—opportunity for policyholders: securing and enforcing additional insured coverage under another party’s liability policy. In Charter Oak Fire Insurance Co. v. Builders Premier Insurance Co., the court held that an equipment lessor qualified as an additional insured under the lessee’s policy and was entitled to a primary defense.
The decision is a useful reminder that additional insured coverage can fundamentally shift defense obligations and materially reduce a policyholder’s exposure. We build on the decision to highlight the practical steps policyholders should take to ensure that all potentially available insurance is identified and pursued.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLPMr. Levine may be contacted at
mlevine@hunton.com
Science-Based Standards for Wildfire Recovery: What California Policyholders Need to Know About A.B. 1642
March 03, 2026 —
Geoffrey B. Fehling & Yosef Itkin - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogWildfires continue to present serious risks for California property owners. Unfortunately, commercial property owners, corporate facilities, landlords, and homeowners need to overcome not only the flames themselves, but also remediating hazardous contamination against a backdrop of unpredictable and ambiguous environmental safety standards. In response to the destructive Los Angeles area fires in 2025, the California Legislature recently introduced Assembly Bill 1642 aimed at creating uniform science-based standards for evaluating, testing, and clearing wildfire-impacted properties.
While A.B. 1642 is in its early stages of consideration, it could materially influence claims handling, remediation costs, risk management practices, and broader liability exposures for California policyholders.
Reprinted courtesy of
Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and
Yosef Itkin, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@hunton.com
Mr. Itkin may be contacted at yitkin@hunton.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.
“The Superintendent Told Us to Do It:” Why Verbal Approval May Not Be Enough
June 02, 2026 —
Andrew Lintner - Colorado Construction Litigation BlogIn construction defect litigation, one scenario appears repeatedly: a subcontractor installs work in a manner that differs from the plans, specifications, manufacturer instructions, or industry standards after being verbally directed to do so by the general contractor, superintendent, architect, or owner’s representative.
At the time, the decision may seem minor. The project is moving quickly, the field team wants to maintain progress, and nobody wants to stop working over what appears to be a small issue. The subcontractor may trust the superintendent or project manager and assume the conversation will be remembered later if questions arise.
Years later, however, when the project experiences problems, the people involved may deny the conversation occurred, remember it differently, or simply no longer remember the project. Without written documentation, the subcontractor can find itself defending claims for defective work, even though it performed the installation exactly as directed.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Andrew Lintner, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Lintner may be contacted at
alintner@hhmrlaw.com
