Prefatory Contract Language Cannot Be Used to Create an Ambiguity with Operative Provisions
May 12, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesContract drafting and interpretation matters.
A case dealt with the potential conflict with prefatory language in an agreement compared with operative provisions in the agreement. The trial court held that the operative provisions control. I discussed this case
here where the appellate court reversed based on the prefatory language.
But, through a motion for rehearing, the appellate court reconsidered its position and affirmed the trial court based on the operative provisions, mainly that the prefatory language cannot be used to create an ambiguity with operative provisions. Consider this explanation in affirming the trial court:
Because the trial court correctly found that the initial language in the contract was prefatory and could not be used to create an ambiguity in the remainder of the contract, we affirm the final judgment.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
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.
Landlord Determined to Not Qualify as Additional Insured
September 08, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiIn a dispute between two insurers, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that the landlord was not an additional insured under the tenant’s policy. Peleus Ins. Co. v. Am. European Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 17981 June 22, 2026).
Blossom Miller sued 57th Avenue and 21st Century in state court alleging that she was injured when she tripped on the sidewalk in front of the leased premises (the “Miller Action”). The premises was leased by 57th Avenue to 21st Century.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Construction Robotics Works Where Variation Ends
August 11, 2026 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessBuiltWorlds published its
2026 Robotics Top 50 this summer, and the list is genuinely wide. Fifty solutions across nine categories, from 3D printing and prefabricated component manufacturing to earthmoving, demolition, material transport, layout, installation, inspection, and drilling. The honorees come from sixteen countries. It looks like robotics has finally spread across the whole project lifecycle.
However, having vendors in nine categories does not mean that contractors are robotizing their work en masse.
Zacua Ventures, in its
2026 construction robotics report, estimates that on-site robotics accounted for less than 0.03% of global construction spending in 2025. Zacua says: “That is not a failed market. It is a market at the beginning of an adoption S-curve”, while warning that its estimates rest on private vendor data and may be high if vendors overstate how widely their machines are deployed.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
Nationwide Preliminary Injunction Ordering Department of Defense to Resume Review of Wind Energy Projects
September 21, 2026 —
Victor J. Roehm III, Christopher P. Colyer & Sara M. Ajeti - Snell & WilmerOn August 6, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon granted a preliminary injunction in Renewable Northwest v. Hegseth, Case No. 3:26-cv-01092-IM, ordering the Department of Defense (DoD) to resume processing wind energy project applications under the existing statutory and regulatory framework and staying DoD’s review freeze pending final adjudication on the merits.
Background
In 2011, Congress created the Military Aviation and Installation Assurance Siting Clearinghouse (Clearinghouse) within DoD to review wind energy projects that might affect military operations. When a wind project developer files an application with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the FAA refers it to DoD to determine whether the project poses an “unacceptable risk to the national security.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Victor J. Roehm III, Snell & Wilmer,
Christopher P. Colyer, Snell & Wilmer and
Sara M. Ajeti, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Roehm may be contacted at vroehm@swlaw.com
Mr. Colyer may be contacted at ccolyer@swlaw.com
Ms. Ajeti may be contacted at sajeti@swlaw.com
Read the full story...
Document Everything! Always! No Exceptions! (AKA, Help Your Lawyer Help You!)
April 14, 2026 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North CarolinaI had a case last year in which once again I found myself thinking: if only my client had better documented the verbal agreements, we would have had a much easier time defending his work.
I know this is often easier said than done— you are in the middle of building a project, and you get a call, and you need to keep the project moving. No time for written change directives or a special bulletin. And yet—it is simply amazing to me the number of people who develop “litigation amnesia” about things when a lawsuit is involved.
Your documentation system does not need to be perfect. You can use a simple Field notebook and handwritten notations. A text memo to yourself or, better yet, an email confirmation to the owner/contractor/whoever.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLCMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
Newmeyer Dillion Ranked in Chambers Spotlight California 2026 Guide
May 26, 2026 —
Newmeyer DillionNEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – May 14, 2026 - Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer Dillion has been ranked in Chambers Spotlight California 2026 guide and recognized as a leading firm in Litigation: General Commercial for Orange County.
Newmeyer Dillion was selected based on an independent and in-depth market analysis, coupled with an assessment of the firm’s experience, expertise and caliber of talent where the firm stood out for its exceptional work and is recognized in Litigation: General Commercial.
Managing Partner Paul Tetzloff expressed the firm's gratitude: “It is an honor for our firm to be recognized by Chambers and Partners in their Spotlight California 2026 guide. This acknowledgment reflects our commitment to providing high quality legal services tailored to the unique needs of our clients.”
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Newmeyer Dillion
Surety Liability Is Coextensive with Its Bond Principal
April 14, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent Miller act payment bond case, U.S. f/u/b/o Whitetail General Constructors v. Northcon, Inc., 2026 WL 46671 (D.Mont. 2026), contains a short noteworthy discussion as to a surety’s liability being coextensive with that of its bond principal. If you are bonded, or you are pursuing a bond, you need to appreciate this, which is why this is a noteworthy discussion:
A “surety’s liability on a Miller Act bond must be at least coextensive with the obligations imposed by the Act if the bond is to have its intended effect.” “Therefore, ‘the liability of a surety and its principal on a Miller Act payment bond is coextensive with the contractual liability of the principal only to the extent that it is consistent with the rights and obligations created under the Miller Act.’” In other words, “[w]here a subcontract’s terms are consistent with the Miller Act’s provisions, the surety’s liability on the Miller Act bond is coextensive with the contractual liability of its princip[al].”
“The liability of a surety under the Miller Act is controlled by federal law, rather than state contract law[.]” The court may, however, “look to state law when interpreting contractual provisions” in a Miller Act case.
“[T]he measure of recovery under the Miller Act is generally determined by the terms of the subcontract [or underlying contract].”
Northcon, supra, at *4-5 (internal citations omitted).
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
