Building More Than a Ramp: HHMR and the Home Builders Foundation
September 15, 2026 —
Colorado Construction Litigation BlogLast Friday, four members of the Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell team traded briefs, depositions, and construction litigation files for lumber, drills, and a day on a jobsite.
HHMR attorneys Ricky Nolen, Amanda Tynan, Kyle Thompson, and Tanner Davis participated in the
Home Builders Foundation’s 2026
Blitz Build, helping construct an accessibility ramp for Andrea, a Denver-area resident whose mobility challenges had made something most of us take for granted extraordinarily difficult: leaving her own home independently.
The day after the build, the volunteers received an e-mail from HBF’s Terrina Reiber with an unusual request: set an alarm for 10:00 the next morning.
At 10:00 on a Saturday, she explained, they might be running errands, meeting a friend, or simply deciding what to do with the day.
When the alarm went off, she asked them to think about Andrea.
Because Andrea could now make that same choice.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Sometimes a General Damages Assessment is Enough. . .
July 06, 2026 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIt has been a while since I last posted here at
Construction Law Musings. Life, law practice, and “blogger’s block” have taken their toll on the posting schedule. Hopefully this will be one of several upcoming posts now that the litigation schedule has lightened a bit over the summer.
Today’s post is about damages. Specifically damage to a homeowner’s roof and her legal damages therefor. That last is of course a sentence that only a
construction attorney (or other litigator) could possibly craft and have it make sense. Now, on with the case. . .In
Hardesty Construction, Inc. v. Weedon, the facts are as follows:
Ms. Weedon had hail damage to the roof of her home. She hired Hardesty Construction to repair and replace the roof. After the first roof was installed and failed inspection, a second roof was installed. The issue was that the first roof had a warranty and the second roof, installed similarly to the first (and allegedly with the same construction issues according to Ms. Weedon’s expert), was not provided with the promised warranty. As one may expect, Weedon sued Hardesty and Hardesty Construction for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract. At trial, Weedon testified, without objection, that her home was worth $40,000 less because of Hardesty Construction’s work, which was based partially on quotes Weedon received to fix the roof. The Circuit Court granted Hardesty Construction’s motion to strike Weedon’s fraudulent inducement claim, but not her other claims. A jury awarded Weedon $30,253.30 on her breach of contract claim. Hardesty Construction appealed, arguing the Circuit Court erred in (a) allowing the jury to consider Weedon’s valuation testimony because it was not based on her personal knowledge and (b) denying its motion to strike based on insufficient evidence as to damages. Weedon assigned cross-error in the Circuit Court’s decision to grant the motion to strike her fraudulent inducement claim against Samual Hardesty.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Doctrine of Substantial Performance When It Comes to Payment
July 27, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent non-construction case touches upon the doctrine of substantial performance when it comes to payment. In this case, a club was to make two payments to secure a rapper’s attendance. The first payment was made. The second payment was made but was a few hundred dollars short of the agreed amount. The rapper did not show up. The club claimed it substantially performed its obligations. At first glance, the argument makes sense because the second payment fell only a few hundred dollars short. But that wasn’t the case when it comes to pre-commencement payment obligations:
Substantial performance applies only when the variance from the contract terms “is inadvertent or unintentional and unimportant so that the work actually performed is substantially what was called for in the contract.” However, when one party agrees to pay the other on or before a specific date, time is of the essence, and the payor is required to pay the payee on or before that date. “There is almost always no such thing as ‘substantial performance’ of payment between commercial parties when the duty is simply the general one to pay. Payment is either made in the amount and on the date due, or it is not.”
Big Gate Records, LLC v. Washington, 51 Fla.L.Weekly D1281a (Fla. 2nd DCA 2026) (internal citations omitted).
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
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
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
Integration Can Inoculate in Utah
July 20, 2026 —
Mark O. Morris - Snell & WilmerThe Utah Court of Appeals recently reaffirmed, in the construction context, Utah’s strict approach to enforcing integration clauses to preclude parol evidence and other legal theories that would vary the written terms of a contract. In Reid v. All Surface LC, 2025 UT App 134, decided last September, the court affirmed in all respects the trial court’s grant of summary judgment based on the strength of an integration clause against a homeowner who sued a contractor for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, negligence, and breach of the implied warranty of habitability. More recently, however, the same court rejected those same arguments in Tidwell v. Jensen, 2026 UT App 13 as to tort claims arising from a used car sale.
The facts in Reid were sympathetic to the plaintiff. After being told she had a mold issue near a defective basement shower, the plaintiff solicited bids. A remediation contractor advised that while it could address the mold, the shower replacement should be handled by someone else. The plaintiff contacted All Surface LC, a shower replacement contractor. During an interview, the sales representative stated that All Surface could “do full mold remediation, tear everything out, and reframe the shower.” The plaintiff ultimately retained All Surface, expecting it would both resolve the mold issues and replace the shower.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mark O. Morris, Snell & WilmerMr. Morris may be contacted at
mmorris@swlaw.com
ACEC Research Institute Report: Real Risk of AI Isn’t Technology. It’s the Org Chart.
September 01, 2026 —
ACEC Research InstituteWASHINGTON (August 19, 2026) – The ACEC Research Institute today released
Leading Through AI Risk: The Enterprise Framework for Engineering Firm Leaders, a new study finding that the most significant risks artificial intelligence poses to engineering firms are organizational rather than technological, and that firms treating AI as an IT initiative are managing the wrong issue.
The report, part of the Institute’s yearslong Firm of the Future initiative, combines an extensive literature review with in-depth interviews of 21 leaders drawn from engineering firms, public infrastructure owners, technology vendors, insurance and legal professionals, licensing and regulatory agencies, and AI consultants.
The report groups AI risk into eight interconnected domains:
- technical reliability and model risk
- professional liability and standard of care risk
- data governance, privacy, and intellectual property risk
- organizational and workforce risk
- ethical, regulatory, and reputational risk
- operational and cybersecurity risk
- financial and business model risk
- strategic leadership and enterprise governance risk
The last serves as the integrating domain through which firms coordinate responsible AI adoption enterprise wide.
The report stresses that firms do not experience these risks one at a time. Weak oversight may create legal liability. Workforce gaps may affect quality assurance. “Understanding these interactions,” the study notes, “is often more important than understanding individual risks independently.”
About the ACEC Research Institute
The ACEC Research Institute is the independent research arm of the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC). Its mission is to fund and deliver research to equip the engineering industry with actionable intelligence on the issues critical to its success. Learn more at www.acecresearchinstitute.org.
When Arbitrators Overreach: Utah Supreme Court Trims an Award Built on an Unpled Claim
November 02, 2026 —
Tyson J. Prisbrey & Mark O. Morris - Snell & WilmerConstruction industry participants have long favored arbitration to resolve disputes, prizing its speed, confidentiality, and finality over traditional litigation. That finality, however, depends on arbitrators staying within the bounds of what the parties actually put before them. In RV Holdings 4, LLC, et al. v. Standard Fiber Investors, LLC, the Utah Supreme Court issued a rare rebuke of an arbitration award, holding that the arbitrator exceeded their authority by awarding damages on a claim the prevailing party never submitted for decision.
The dispute arose from a management-fee relationship between Standard Fiber, a bedding manufacturer, and several affiliated “Ridgeview” entities that provided financial and accounting oversight services. After Standard Fiber stopped paying management fees in 2020, the parties pursued their claims in arbitration. Ridgeview’s arbitration demand sought recovery under two specific theories: that a 2006 management services agreement remained in effect, and alternatively, that an oral “50/50 Agreement” entitled it to a share of fees paid to an affiliated entity. Notably, Ridgeview never asserted a claim for breach of a separate 2014 fee arrangement, and affirmatively disavowed reliance on it. The arbitrator rejected both of Ridgeview’s submitted theories and instead awarded Ridgeview $725,000 based on that unpled 2014 agreement. The district court confirmed the award, concluding that the arbitrator’s decision was rationally related to the parties’ arguments, including evidence Standard Fiber itself introduced about the 2014 arrangement.
Reprinted courtesy of
Tyson J. Prisbrey, Snell & Wilmer and
Mark O. Morris, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Prisbrey may be contacted at tprisbrey@swlaw.com
Mr. Morris may be contacted at mmorris@swlaw.com
Read the full story...
