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...
Sixth Circuit Revives Builder’s Risk Coverage, Refusing to Let Insurer Escape on a Technicality
July 27, 2026 —
Kevin V. Small & Adriana A. Perez - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogIn 3371 Reading, LLC v. Liberty Mutual Group, the Sixth Circuit did something courts do not always do in coverage disputes: it refused to let an insurer avoid liability based on a technical policy condition that could never actually be satisfied.
The decision is a straightforward reminder of two core principles. First, policies must be interpreted from the standpoint of a reasonably prudent insured. Second, hyper-technical conditions cannot be used to deny coverage where compliance is never possible.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kevin V. Small, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and
Adriana A. Perez, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Mr. Small may be contacted at ksmall@hunton.com
Ms. Perez may be contacted at pereza@hunton.com
Read the full story...
AI Can Now Train the Soft Skills Construction Ignored
August 03, 2026 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessMost AEC professionals learn to work in teams and across teams through trial and error. There are, however, opportunities to better prepare for the real world with formal training. Until now, it has required human facilitators. Now, generative AI is emerging as a scalable alternative, which I’m also exploring.
A Gap in Curricula
When I studied architecture, most of the teamwork happened with co-students in the same department. However, one course focused on industrial projects where future architects and engineers collaborated on a simulated project. I’m not sure if a similar course is still in the curriculum, but it was certainly worthwhile and should have been much more extensive.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
Why Construction Tendering Needs Specialized Intelligence
March 31, 2026 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessThe construction industry has never lacked data; it lacks usable intelligence at the moments that matter most. In the high-stakes phases of tendering and pre-construction, the industry still relies on manual “Control-F” searches through thousands of pages of unstructured documents.
I recently spoke with
Herman Smith, a civil engineer and former Chief Digital Officer at Multiconsult, who left the corporate world to solve this specific bottleneck. His startup,
Volve, isn’t just another AI wrapper; it is a specialized “drill” designed to penetrate the complexity of construction documentation.
The Paradox of Digitalization without a Productivity Boost
For years, the AEC industry has faced a frustrating paradox: we have more digital tools than ever, yet productivity has not improved. Herman observed this from the inside, managing hundreds of unique software licenses while seeing companies struggle to adapt to new workflows.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
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.
Communication Gaps Can Cost Construction Firms in the Data Center Boom
June 02, 2026 —
Mike Lewis - Construction ExecutiveThe
data center construction boom is transforming the construction industry at a historic pace. Fueled by cloud computing, artificial intelligence and relentless demand for digital infrastructure, data centers have become one of the fastest-growing project types in the built environment. Billions of dollars are flowing into new facilities and expansions, creating unprecedented opportunities for construction firms positioned to deliver reliably.
But opportunity alone does not guarantee success. As competition intensifies, communication failures and poor information management are emerging as some of the most common (and costly) reasons firms lose margins, miss deadlines or fail to secure repeat work. In data center construction, where schedules are compressed and tolerance for error is minimal, even small breakdowns in communication can have outsized consequences.
Reprinted courtesy of
Mike Lewis, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the full story...
The Seventh Circuit Rejects Navigators Insurance Company’s Attempt to Escape Additional Insured Coverage For a Gas Explosion
March 24, 2026 —
Kyle A. Rudolph & Anna M. Perry - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.In a recent Seventh Circuit decision, Atlanta Gas Light Company v. Navigators Insurance Company, the court addressed a theme that policyholders are often confronted with by insurers
[1] – insurers disputing additional insured coverage where the named insured is not named in the underlying action. The court aptly rejected this position since it was undisputed that the bodily injuries alleged in the underlying lawsuits were due to a gas explosion that was “caused, in whole or in part, by” the named insured’s acts or omissions.
I. Background
The additional insureds, Atlanta Gas Light Company and Southern Company Gas (collectively, “AGL”), retained the named insured, United States Infrastructure Corporation (“USIC”), to locate and mark gas lines that AGL owned in Georgia. USIC failed to mark a certain gas line, which was later struck by a boring company, leading to an explosion that injured three people.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kyle A. Rudolph, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Rudolph may be contacted at KRudolph@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Perry may be contacted at APerry@sdvlaw.com
Read the full story...
Appraisal Award Upheld Despite Insurer’s Contention that Causation was Considered
February 23, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court in Tennessee granted the insured’s motion for summary judgment finding the appraisal award was properly determined despite the insurer’s argument that the appraisal panel considered causation of the loss. Nashville Communications, Inc. v. Auto-Owners (Mutual) Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223455 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 13, 2025)
A windstorm struck and damaged the building owned and insured by Nashville Communications (NashComm). A claim was submitted to the insurer, Auto-Owners, for damage to the roof and interior water leakage. Auto-Owners acknowledged that there was some amount of wind damage to the building from the wind event.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
