WSHB Managing Partner Chad Dunigan Named Finalist for Jerrold S. Oliver "Ollie" Award of Excellence
May 12, 2026 —
Wood Smith Henning BermanChad Dunigan, Managing Partner of Wood Smith Henning & Berman's Orlando, Florida, office, has been selected as one of just four finalists for the prestigious Jerrold S. Oliver Award of Excellence, affectionately known in the construction defect community as the "Ollie" Award. This distinguished honor recognizes individuals who have made exceptional contributions and demonstrated unwavering dedication to advancing the field of construction defect law.
Named in honor of the late Judge Jerrold S. Oliver, a revered founder of alternative dispute resolution in construction defect claims and litigation, the Ollie award symbolizes loyalty, commitment, and trust within the industry. Judge Oliver's legacy as a staunch believer in the resolution process continues to inspire professionals who strive for excellence in the construction defect community.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wood Smith Henning Berman
Managing Rising Costs and Shifting Legal Risk for Florida High-Rise and Condominium Projects
May 05, 2026 —
Stephen Hauptman - Ball Janik LLPFlorida's construction defect landscape is experiencing a major shift. The convergence of material and labor cost volatility, regulatory tightening, and increasingly complex litigation strategies is forcing associations, developers, and their counsel to rethink how they approach risk management and dispute resolution. For those managing large-scale condo and high-rise projects, the stakes have never been higher.
The Cost Volatility Trap
Construction material prices rose at a "staggering" 12.6% annualized rate during the first two months of 2026, according to
recent industry analysis. Tariff impacts are projected to lead to more increases of 5.4% to 6.8%, depending on property type. For associations facing construction defect claims, this volatility creates a cascading problem: repair scopes defined two years ago are now dramatically underpriced, and damage calculations that appeared reasonable at discovery are obsolete by the time of settlement.
Courts and mediators are increasingly scrutinizing how cost estimates were developed and whether they account for existing market circumstances. Associations must now commission updated repair assessments more frequently, a practice that increases investigation costs but strengthens the credibility of damage claims. Conversely, defendants are weaponizing cost inflation as a defense, arguing that claimed damages are speculative or inflated. The practical result: repair sequencing and phasing strategies have become critical litigation tools. Associations that can demonstrate a rational, cost-effective repair plan tied to current market data are more favorably placed in settlement negotiations.
Regulatory Pressure and Deliberate Timing
Florida's 2026 condo compliance regime has significantly changed the defect claims landscape. Elevated transparency requirements, stricter reserve funding mandates, and tightened building safety inspection protocols mean that associations now face dual pressures: Comply with new regulations while simultaneously handling construction defect exposure.
This regulatory environment is changing investigation and documentation strategy. Associations that delay defect investigation to avoid triggering reserve funding obligations or disclosure requirements are taking on considerable legal risk. Recent case law such as the Third District Court of Appeal's reaffirmation of Chapter 558's pre-suit mediation requirements, underscores Florida's intent to resolve disputes early. Associations that move deliberately and record carefully during the pre-suit phase gain leverage in mediation and reduce the risk of expensive litigation.
Timing also intersects with repair sequencing. Associations must now balance the urgency of compliance inspections against the strategic advantage of phased repairs. Some associations are using compliance deadlines as a forcing mechanism to accelerate settlement discussions, while others are sequencing repairs to demonstrate good-faith remediation efforts before litigation commences.
The Emerging Risk Transfer Challenge
As construction defect claims grow more complex and costly, the traditional risk transfer systems, such as design-build warranties, contractor bonds, and insurance, are proving inadequate. Developers and general contractors are increasingly shifting risk to subcontractors and material suppliers, fragmenting liability and complicating recovery efforts for associations. Permitting and approval friction is also creating new litigation pressure points. Delays in municipal approvals, changes to building code interpretations, and disputes over remedial work compliance continue to spawn collateral claims that go beyond the original defect. Associations must now anticipate not only defect liability but also regulatory compliance disputes with municipalities, creating a dual-front legal challenge.
For large communities, this means reconsidering the entire risk architecture. Insurance carriers are tightening coverage, and traditional indemnification chains are breaking down. Forward-thinking associations are engaging counsel earlier in the development process to negotiate clearer risk allocation provisions and more robust insurance requirements.
Taking a Data-Driven Approach
Managing rising costs and shifting legal risk in Florida's high-rise and condo market requires a more sophisticated, data-driven approach. Associations must commission frequent cost updates, move deliberately through pre-suit investigation and mediation, and challenge traditional assumptions about risk transfer. Developers and their counsel should view regulatory compliance not as a burden but as an opportunity to demonstrate good-faith risk management and strengthen settlement positioning.
The firms and associations that succeed in 2026 will be those that treat cost volatility, regulatory change, and litigation strategy not as separate challenges but as linked elements of a coherent risk management framework.
Stephen Hauptman is special counsel in Ball Janik LLP’s Fort Lauderdale office. He may be reached at shauptman@balljanik.com.
A Win for Clarity: What a Recent Federal Court Decision Means for Davis-Bacon Compliance
July 13, 2026 —
Stephen E. Irving - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Following the
Department of Labor’s 2023 Davis-Bacon rule changes, federal construction contractors faced a pressing question: not whether paying prevailing wages is required, but how far those obligations could extend. Could they reach off-site material suppliers? Delivery drivers? Contracts that omitted Davis-Bacon clauses entirely? A recent federal court decision in AGC of America v. US Department of Labor answers these questions in important ways, vacating several disputed provisions and giving contractors greater certainty when pricing, bidding, and administering federal construction projects.
The ruling addresses three aspects of the 2023 regulations that sought to extend Davis-Bacon obligations beyond their traditional scope. By vacating those provisions, the decision creates a more predictable compliance environment and reinforces an important principle: Davis-Bacon enforcement works best when contractors, workers, and regulators operate under clear, objective rules.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen E. Irving, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Mr. Irving may be contacted at
sirving@pecklaw.com
New Year’s Resolution: Engineering the “Tee-Up Day” for Complex Construction Mediations
February 17, 2026 —
Joël Bertet - The Dispute ResolverThe construction industry is defined by its commitment to "Critical Path" scheduling. From the moment a project breaks ground, every stakeholder—from the MEP sub to the owner’s rep—is focused on sequencing. We know that you cannot hang drywall before the rough-in is inspected, and you cannot pour a slab-on-grade until the vapor barrier is verified.
Yet, when these projects devolve into litigation, the legal community often abandons the logic of sequencing. We rush headlong into "The Mediation Day"—a high-stakes, expensive, one-day marathon where we expect dozens of parties, hundreds of insurance layers, and thousands of pages of expert reports to magically align into a settlement by 6:00 PM.
As we open our calendars for the new year, it is time for a professional resolution. We must stop treating mediation as a single-day event and start treating it as a managed, sequenced process. The centerpiece of this resolution is the “Tee-Up Day.”
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Joël Bertet, ResolveBertetMr. Bertet may be contacted at
joel@resolvebertet.com
EPA Expands PFAS Reporting Requirements with Addition of New Chemical to Toxics Release Inventory, Published by Law360
June 08, 2026 —
Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) addition of sodium perfluorohexanesulfonate (PFHxS-Na) to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) introduces new federal reporting requirements for businesses that manufacture, process, or use the chemical. Because reporting obligations apply retroactively to the start of the year, affected facilities must quickly evaluate their compliance and recordkeeping practices.
In a recent Law360 article, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Senior Counsel, Ayodeji Ayolola, explains why PFHxS-Na was automatically added to the TRI, how the EPA’s public reporting system works, and which businesses may be affected by the new rule. The article also touches upon key compliance considerations, including supply chain reviews, reporting thresholds for chemicals of special concern, and preparation for public disclosure requirements.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Seventh Circuit, With an Assist From the Illinois Supreme Court, Finds That “Pollution Exclusion” Bars Coverage For Emissions Allowed Under Regulatory Permit
April 20, 2026 —
Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogIn Griffith Foods Int’l Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 24-1217 & 24-1223 (7th Cir. Mar. 13, 2026), the Seventh Circuit addressed the meaning and scope of a pollution exclusion in a standard-form commercial general liability insurance policy for underlying injuries caused by ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions. The insurance dispute arose out of underlying tort litigation involving bodily injury claims, including cancer, allegedly caused by emissions of ethylene oxide over a 35-year period from 1984 through 2019 by Griffith Foods International and later Sterigenics U.S. The pollution exclusion at issue generally barred coverage for “bodily injury” arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants.
Interpreting similar exclusions, the Illinois Supreme Court has previously held that the standard CGL pollution exclusion bars coverage for bodily injuries caused by traditional environmental pollution (essentially industrial emissions of pollutants), but not by more commonplace emissions (such as carbon monoxide from a residential furnace or excess chlorine in a backyard swimming pool). See American States Insurance Co. v. Koloms, 177 Ill. 2d 473 (Ill. 1997). In Griffith Foods, the District Court initially concluded that the pollution exclusion did not apply because the companies emitted EtO pursuant to a permit issued by the IEPA. The District Court reached this latter conclusion by applying Erie Insurance Exchange v. Imperial Marble Corp., 957 N.E.2d 1214 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011), an Illinois intermediate appellate court decision finding it ambiguous whether a CGL policy’s pollution exclusion barred coverage for emissions authorized by regulatory permit.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Taylor, Traub LiebermanMr. Taylor may be contacted at
jtaylor@tlsslaw.com
PSA: Be Sure to Document (Even When Time is Short)
April 14, 2026 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsWritten
change orders are a big deal. Almost all construction contracts (at least
the well drafted ones) require written contracts. Written change orders are even important enough that Virginia law
requires these provisions in residential construction contracts.
Why are they so important? Because they are a “mini-contract” of sorts. They
set the expectations, price, time, and work to be performed; work that was not included in the original price or scope for the project. Without this in writing, there will be no record of what the parties agreed to do. Does this sound familiar? Sound like its own contract? It should.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Consider The Limited Warranty from Your Homebuilder
July 06, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen purchasing a home from a homebuilder, there is an important consideration when it comes to the limited warranty you receive around the time you close on the home. That limited warranty likely includes an arbitration provision requiring you to arbitrate your disputes, such as construction defect claims, against the homebuilder. That arbitration provision will most likely include all claims, including statutory claims (such as a statutory violation of a building code claim), requiring you to arbitrate, as opposed to litigate, your disputes against the homebuilder. This is an important consideration. If the arbitration provision does not allow you to arbitrate all of your claims, and eliminates your rights to legitimate statutory claims, the arbitration provision could be unenforceable.
By way of example, in a residential construction defect dispute, Anderson v. Taylor Morrison of Florida, Inc., 223 So.3d 1088 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017), the appeal turned on whether the arbitration provision in the homebuilder’s limited warranty was valid. The homeowners took possession of their home in 2009. In 2015, the homeowners served a Florida Statutes Chapter 558 notice of construction defects that included a statutory violation of a building code claim under Florida Statute §553.84. The limited warranty included an arbitration provision that specified it was the “exclusive remedy” for all disputes arising out of or related to the warranty or issues with the home and property. When read together with the warranty’s disclaimer that precluded claims not covered by the warranty “whether in contract, tort, or otherwise,” the statutory building code violation claim could not be remedied through arbitration because it fell outside the warranty’s coverage.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
