Florida's Third DCA Reasserts the Teeth of Chapter 558 and the Future of Construction Defect Litigation
February 23, 2026 —
Ryan C. Brooks & Keith G. Salhab - Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLPThe case of Moss & Associates, LLC v. Daystar Peterson and Brickell Heights East Condominium Association, Inc. represents a quiet but significant correction in Florida construction law litigation. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal granted a petition for writ of certiorari and quashed a trial court order that denied a contractor's motion to stay litigation under Chapter 558, Florida Statutes.
Though procedurally narrow, the ruling reflects an increasingly assertive appellate stance. Chapter 558's pre-suit notice and right-to-repair process is mandatory, jurisdictional in effect, and not subject to dilution by trial-level discretion. At its core, the opinion reinforces a foundational principle. Florida intends for construction defect disputes to be managed, investigated, and often resolved before they reach a courtroom. The Third DCA's insistence on strict statutory compliance signals to trial courts, and to the plaintiffs' bar, that procedural shortcuts will not be tolerated.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ryan C. Brooks, Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP and
Keith G. Salhab, Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP
Mr. Brooks may be contacted at rbrooks@wshblaw.com
Mr. Salhab may be contacted at ksalhab@wshblaw.com
Read the full story...
Amended Again?! Critical Changes to RPAPL § 881: What New York Contractors and Construction Managers Need to Know
March 10, 2026 —
Mark A. Snyder & David Polazzi - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Recent amendments to New York’s RPAPL § 881 will significantly change how project teams obtain and maintain access to adjoining properties for construction-related work. The 2025 amendment signed into law by Governor Hochul, and the newly enacted 2026 revisions, will directly impact general contractors (GCs) and construction managers (CMs), as well as their trade contractors who regularly confront neighbor‑access, support‑of‑excavation, and protection‑of‑adjoining‑property challenges. Although we do not advise that GCs and CMs get involved in the “weeds” of license agreements or the prosecution of an action to obtain access pursuant to an RPAPL § 881 action, which are typically owner responsibilities, GCs and CMs should understand the change in law, as there may be circumstances where they are responsible for securing access.
This alert outlines the key statutory changes and explains the operational, scheduling, insurance, and risk‑management implications for the New York construction industry.
Reprinted courtesy of
Mark A. Snyder, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
David Polazzi, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Snyder may be contacted at msnyder@pecklaw.com
Mr. Polazzi may be contacted at dpolazzi@pecklaw.com
Read the full story...
GRSM Attorneys Selected to 2025 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Lists
January 06, 2026 —
Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniSuper Lawyers® has released its 2025 attorney lists across various regions of the United States. This year, 189 Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani attorneys have been selected, with 60 named to Super Lawyers and 129 named to Rising Stars.
*For attorneys licensed to practice in New Jersey: No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey. Please visit the Super Lawyers Selection Process for a detailed description of the Super Lawyers and Rising Stars selection methodology.
GRSM Super Lawyers 2025
Northern California
Michael D. Bruno
David C. Capell
Lisa M. Cappelluti
Dion N. Cominos
Matthew S. Foy
Natalie Fujikawa
Marie Trimble Holvick
Michael A. Laurenson
Michael J. Pietrykowski
Andrew I. Port
Gina Stassi Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
UPDATED: Dominion Sues Feds Over Offshore Wind Project Halt, With Action Possible on Others Shut
February 02, 2026 —
Debra K. Rubin - Engineering News-RecordUPDATED: Dominion Energy
filed a federal lawsuit Dec. 23 in Norfolk, Va. against the U.S. Interior Dept.
immediate construction pause order for its 2.6-GW Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind energy project (CVOW) off Virginia Beach, Va., which it developing to begin operation next year. The project is one of five large East Coast offshore wind projects under construction that the federal agency paused, claiming new "national security" risks. Dominion and OSW Project LLC, the entity that includes project co-owner Stonepeak Partners, a private investor, said they seek a
temporary restraining order.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-RecordMs. Rubin may be contacted at
rubind@enr.com
Reducing Rework on Construction Projects Benefits Budget, Schedule and Financial Loss
February 10, 2026 —
Brian Clarke - Construction ExecutiveThe costs of not building it right the first time is statistically staggering—some research suggests up to 20% of the total project costs. This article highlights the costs of re-work, provides a financial worksheet to track the costs of re-work, and a trusted tool to help reduce the impact of re-work.
Typically, when discussing rework, one thinks of the labor and material costs, but there are other costs associated with rework that are less easily quantified:
- Liquidated damages and related legal costs
- Potential for increasing safety incidents associated with rework
- Morale loss due to performing rework
- Loss of previously trained workers due to delays caused by rework
- Reputational loss and the inability to bid on future work
- Challenges of future work to be performed due to schedule delays on a current project
Reprinted courtesy of
Brian Clarke, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Mr. Clarke may be contacted at brianclarke1121@aol.com
Read the full story...
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...
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.
One Industry, One Goal: Construction Safety Week 2026
May 05, 2026 —
Maggie Murphy - Construction ExecutiveConstruction safety has long been a top priority across the industry. Yet fatality rates have remained stubbornly flat for more than a decade. Steven Carter, global health and safety director at
Gilbane chair company for
Construction Safety Week 2026—believes the industry has reached a pivotal moment. This year’s theme—”
All In Together: Recognize. Respond. Respect.”—is a unified call to action for owners, designers, contractors and craft professionals around a shared, risk-based approach to preventing serious injuries and fatalities.
In a recent interview with Construction Executive, Carter discusses why the industry must move beyond incremental improvements, how technology and AI can support better planning and what it will take to create a true culture of psychological safety on jobsites.
Reprinted courtesy of
Maggie Murphy, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the full story...
