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
GRSM Team Obtains Defense Verdict for Homeowners’ Association in Orange County Superior Court
August 11, 2026 —
Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniA Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani multi-state team, including Partners Christine Barker, Sean Ferron, and Keith Cramer, obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a homeowners’ association (HOA) in an Orange County Superior Court bench trial spanning two months.
The case began in 2022 when a homeowner sued after the Architectural Review Committee and HOA Board of Directors declined his teardown-and-rebuild plans due to view and aesthetic concerns. After a motion for summary judgment ruling in which the court found that the existing covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) did not protect views, the HOA held a special election to add explicit view protections to the CC&Rs. At the February 2025 trial call, the plaintiff sought leave to file a third amended complaint challenging the validity of that vote, drastically reframing the case from CC&R enforcement to one of election validity. A second plaintiff then filed a parallel action toward the end of the limitations period, and the two cases were consolidated.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Michael C. Zisa and Phillip Boldt Co-Author D.C. Chapter of “50-State Guide to Electronic Execution of the General Agreement of Indemnity”
October 06, 2026 —
Michael C. Zisa & Phillip Boldt - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Michael C. Zisa, Co-Managing Partner of P&A’s Washington, D.C. office, Chair of the Surety and Construction Related Insurance Defense practice, and Co-Chair of the Crisis Management team, and Phillip Boldt, an Associate in P&A’s Washington, D.C. office, have co-authored the District of Columbia chapter of the American Bar Association (ABA) Fidelity and Surety Law Committee and The Surety & Fidelity Association of America’s (SFAA), “50-State Guide to Electronic Execution of the General Agreement of Indemnity.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael C. Zisa, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Phillip Boldt, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Zisa may be contacted at mzisa@pecklaw.com
Mr. Boldt may be contacted at pboldt@pecklaw.com
Read the full story...
U.S. Supreme Court Decision Alters Course of $745M Louisiana Coastal Damage Judgment
June 15, 2026 —
Jennifer Kretschmann & Jennifer E. Michel - Lewis BrisboisThe U.S. Supreme Court has issued a unanimous decision allowing oil and gas companies to move Louisiana coastal erosion lawsuits from state court to federal court under the federal officer removal statute. While the ruling is procedural, it carries significant implications for environmental- and energy-related risks. The case,
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, Slip Op. 24-813 (April 17, 2026), addressed a threshold jurisdictional question but has broader significance for environmental and climate related litigation. State courts are often viewed as more favorable forums for plaintiffs asserting environmental damage claims, particularly those brought by governmental entities.
The opinion issued on April 17, 2026 is the latest development in long-running Louisiana coastal litigation that began more than a decade ago. Starting in 2013, Louisiana parishes filed 42 lawsuits against oil and gas companies alleging environmental damage related to historic oil field operations. The parishes alleged that oil and gas companies violated state coastal management laws by failing to properly restore impacted areas. Chevron sought to remove the cases from state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), known as federal officer removal, which provides federal jurisdiction over “any person acting under [an] officer” of the United States "for or relating to any act under color of such office." The Fifth Circuit rejected the argument and remanded the case, and others like it, to state court. Trial began in March 2025 in Point à la Hache, Louisiana. On April 4, 2025, the jury awarded a total of $745 million to compensate for land loss, contamination and abandoned equipment. On June 16, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the question of whether a federal contractor can remove to federal court when sued for oil-production activities undertaken to fulfill a federal oil-refinement contract.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jennifer Kretschmann, Lewis Brisbois and
Jennifer E. Michel, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Kretschmann may be contacted at Jennifer.Kretschmann@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Michel may be contacted at Jenny.Michel@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the full story...
Course of Construction Exclusions and the CGL Policy
July 20, 2026 —
Anna M. Perry, Rachel S. Kindseth & Nina Catanzaro - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.I. Course of Construction Exclusions
Course of Construction (“COC”) exclusions are found on General Liability and excess liability policies, typically a wrap-up or project specific policy, and generally exclude “all property damage occurring during the course of construction.” Insurers claim COC exclusions are not problematic because they are intended to prevent an overlap in coverage between the general liability policy and first-party property Builder’s Risk policy. However, because General Liability policies and Builder’s Risk policies provide coverage for different risks, COC exclusions can create a gap in coverage for owners and contractors. Therefore, any exclusion on a wrap-up or project specific policy that limits coverage for property damage liability should be scrutinized, and amendments sought when warranted and commercially achievable, for owners, developers and contractors because General Liability policies do not cover the same risk as that of a Builder’s Risk policy.
General liability policies provide defense and indemnity to the insured(s) for claims made by a third-party against the insured. Broad COC exclusions serve to preclude coverage for all property damage, not just property damage to the insured project. This includes property damage to property other than the insured project, e.g. an adjacent property. On the other hand, Builder’s Risk policies provide first-party property coverage for direct physical loss to the project during the course of construction. The Builder’s Risk policy will not provide coverage for property other than the project itself (e.g., adjacent property) and it will not provide a defense or indemnity in the event the owner of the damaged property brings a claim against a potentially at-fault party.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.,
Rachel S. Kindseth, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Nina Catanzaro, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Perry may be contacted at APerry@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Kindseth may be contacted at rkindseth@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Catanzaro may be contacted at NCatanzaro@sdvlaw.com
Read the full story...
Colorado Court Affirms Attorneys’ Fee Award Against Plaintiff’s Counsel for Pursuing Unsupported CCPA Claims
August 03, 2026 —
David McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation BlogThe Colorado Court of Appeals recently affirmed a trial court’s award of more than $241,000 in attorney fees against a plaintiffs’ attorney who continued to pursue unsupported claims arising out of a residential construction dispute. Although the opinion was not selected for official publication under C.A.R. 35(e) and therefore has no precedential value, it nevertheless provides an instructive reminder that Colorado courts are willing to impose significant financial consequences when claims lack substantial justification.
For builders, developers, contractors, insurers, and defense counsel, the case is worth reading, not because it announces new law, but because it demonstrates that Colorado’s fee-shifting statute remains a meaningful tool when unsupported claims continue long after they should have been abandoned.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Preventing Common and Costly Water Intrusion Events in Construction
July 13, 2026 —
Andrew Swift - Construction ExecutiveWater leaking into a building is a leading cause of
damage and loss in the construction industry. On one jobsite, heavy rains flooded a sub-basement, damaging a new electrical transformer—all because a roof drain was not property connected. On another jobsite, a drinking-fountain supply line broke in a multistory building that was undergoing renovation, causing water to run—undetected—for an entire weekend, resulting in water damage to all lower floors, where construction had been finished.
Those loss scenarios could have been prevented with a comprehensive and effective water damage prevention plan (WDPP). This includes routine site inspections to identify uncontrolled water damage exposures and basic maintenance to make sure drains are clean of debris and divert them to a catch basin or low point away from the building. An effective WDPP plan also incorporates technology such as backflow preventers on sewer connections and water sensing technology to monitor the most vulnerable exposures.
Reprinted courtesy of
Andrew Swift, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the full story...
From CERCLA to Drinking Water: D.C. Circuit’s PFAS Ruling Enters a Second Regulatory Fight
October 06, 2026 —
Ashleigh K. Myers, Amanda G. Halter & Jillian Marullo - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogOn August 18, 2026, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
upheld EPA’s designation of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund). In Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. EPA, the court rejected challenges to EPA’s interpretation of CERCLA Section 102(a), the adequacy of its notice and comment process, its analysis of costs and benefits, and its decision to proceed despite uncertainty about future response actions and costs.
This decision is already being invoked in a separate D.C. Circuit challenge to EPA’s 2024 PFAS drinking water rule promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Six days after the CERCLA decision, respondent intervenors cited it as supplemental authority in American Water Works Association v. EPA, No. 24-1188, ahead of oral argument scheduled for
September 18, 2026. The Chamber of Commerce decision may assist the respondent intervenors on certain notice and comment and economic analysis arguments, but its significance should not be overstated. The principal challenges to the standards for the four PFAS subject to EPA’s Hazard Index-based maximum contaminant level (MCL) turn on requirements specific to the SDWA, and EPA itself now agrees that those provisions were promulgated through an unlawful process.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ashleigh K. Myers, Pillsbury,
Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury and
Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury
Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com
Read the full story...
