Supreme Court Rules Tariffs Unconstitutional: Why the Construction Industry Shouldn’t Expect Calm Just Yet
March 31, 2026 —
Christopher Barnett - Construction ExecutiveThe U.S. Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump did what many expected: It held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. What few anticipated was the speed of what followed: Within hours of the ruling, the administration announced replacement tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, imposed a 10% global surcharge effective February 24, and signaled forthcoming Section 301 investigations against most major trading partners.
For those in the construction industry hoping the Learning Resources ruling would restore market stability, the message was unambiguous. The constitutional question may be settled, but the market disruption is not.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Barnett, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the full story...
Massachusetts Construction Industry Continues to Wait While Prompt Payment Law Is Put to the Test
March 31, 2026 —
Catherine Maronski - Construction Law ZoneEarlier this month, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) heard argument in J.C. Cannistraro, LLC v. Columbia Construction Co. et al., a dispute concerning the state’s Prompt Payment Act (PPA). Although a decision has yet to be issued, it could potentially pose widespread implications for high-value private construction projects moving forward – and perhaps backwards.
The PPA, G. L. c. 149, § 29E, enacted by the Massachusetts Legislature in 2010, has become a keystone in the construction industry. It was enacted to address, in part, downstream cash flow issues that tend to pervade construction projects by mandating a series of strict guidelines for submitting, and responding to, payment applications for private projects valued over $3,000,000. Amongst these requirements are set timeframes to respond to an application, as well as what must be contained in an application rejection. Critically, if an owner or upper-tier contractor fails to fully comply with all the statutory requirements in response to a proper payment application, the application is automatically “deemed to be approved” and payable. Significantly, however, this is not always the end of the line.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Catherine Maronski, Robinson ColeMs. Maronski may be contacted at
cmaronski@rc.com
Colorado Legislature Considers Series of Bills Aimed at Boosting Affordable Housing Construction in Colorado — What Homebuilders Need to Know
April 08, 2026 —
Amanda E. McKinlay - Snell & WilmerOn January 21, 2026, lawmakers introduced a series of bills with the goals of addressing affordable housing issues and incentivizing construction in Colorado.
House Bill 26-1001 (known as the “Housing Opportunities Made Easier ‘HOME’ Act”) concerns the promotion for residential developments on “qualifying properties” that do not contain exempt parcels through the bypassing of often time-consuming local planning processes. Under HB26-1001, a “qualifying property is any real property that contains no more than five acres of land and is owned by: (i) a nonprofit organization with a demonstrated history of providing affordable housing; (ii) a nonprofit organization that provides public transit; (iii) a nonprofit organization that has entered into an agreement with another nonprofit organization with a demonstrated history of providing affordable housing, provided that the agreement requires the nonprofit organization with a demonstrated history of providing affordable housing to develop a residential development on the property; (iv) a school district; (v) a state college or university; (vi) a housing authority; or (vii) a local or regional transit district or a regional transportation authority serving one or more counties.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Amanda E. McKinlay, Snell & WilmerMs. McKinlay may be contacted at
amckinlay@swlaw.com
Chambers USA Recognizes Hunton’s Insurance Coverage Practice in 2026 Guide
June 29, 2026 —
Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogHunton is pleased to announce that its insurance coverage practice was recognized nationally for Insurance: Dispute Resolution – Policyholder in the recently released 2026 Chambers USA guide. The team also received state rankings in Florida (Insurance: Dispute Resolution), Georgia (Insurance), the District of Columbia (Insurance: Policyholder), and Massachusetts (Insurance).
In addition to the insurance team’s group recognition across multiple states, the 2026 guide included individual rankings for
Lorelie “Lorie” S. Masters (USA Nationwide and District of Columbia),
Latosha M. Ellis (District of Columbia),
Michael S. Levine (District of Columbia),
Koorosh “KT” Talieh (District of Columbia),
Walter J. Andrews (Florida),
Andrea DeField (Florida),
Cary D. Steklof (Florida),
Lawrence J. Bracken II (Georgia), and
Geoffrey B. Fehling (Massachusetts).
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Ninth Circuit Affirms District Court’s Finding of No Coverage for Interior Leak
March 24, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiApplying California law, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that water damage caused by a leaking pipe over time was not covered under the insured’s homeowners’ policy. Mojica v. State Farm General Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 32405 (9th Cir. Dec. 11, 2025).
A small hole, slightly larger than a pen tip in size, developed in a pressurized hot water pipe. The resulting leak lasted for nearly six days and released enough water to saturate and ruin all the subflooring and flooring in the insureds’ home.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Breaking Ground On New California Public Works Prevailing Wage Requirements
April 27, 2026 —
Heather Frisch, Christopher Bouquet & Ashley Stein - The Construction SeytSeyfarth Synopsis: As of January 1, 2026, AB 889 bulldozed California’s Prevailing Wage law, which impacts public works employers—including public agencies, the contractors that work for them, and private owners and developers whose projects may be subject to public works requirements. The amended law reframes the calculation of fringe benefits for individuals who work on public works project and mandates annualization of such benefits, demolishes the practice of frontloading these benefits, and requires employers to maintain inspection-ready records of compliance.
This year, AB 889 significantly revised California’s prevailing wage law, codified at Labor Code section 1773.1, to clarify the state’s prevailing wage regulations and streamline enforcement. Accordingly, as of January 1, 2026, California public works employers are required to annualize employees’ fringe benefits and maintain specific documentation demonstrating statutory compliance. These new obligations impact public agencies and their contractors, as well as private owners and developers whose projects may be subject to public works requirements. Continue reading for the blueprint of how to comply with the state’s amended prevailing wage law.
Reprinted courtesy of
Heather Frisch, Seyfarth Shaw LLP,
Christopher Bouquet, Seyfarth Shaw LLP and
Ashley Stein, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Ms. Frisch may be contacted at hfrisch@seyfarth.com
Mr. Bouquet may be contacted at cbouquet@seyfarth.com
Ms. Stein may be contacted at astein@seyfarth.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.
Shane Singh Named One of Los Angeles Business Journal's 'Top 100 Lawyers of Los Angeles' for 2026
April 27, 2026 —
Lewis BrisboisSacramento Partner Shane Singh has been named one of the Los Angeles Business Journal's "Top 100 Lawyers of Los Angeles" for 2026.
The LABJ’s annual list honors Los Angeles' top lawyers for their achievements within the city's business community.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
