Can Anything Supersede Excel in AEC?
April 27, 2026 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessIf there’s one piece of software that dominates the business world across industries, it’s Microsoft Excel. Can AI finally dethrone the mighty spreadsheet?
Memorable Spreadsheet Moments
Everyone has memorable spreadsheet moments. I have a few. For example, my then-architecture firm was involved in more than a dozen housing developments abroad. I developed an Excel workbook that took the required number of households as input and automatically generated a breakdown of buildings and their apartment types for AutoCAD. This was urban planning and architectural design done with a spreadsheet.
I also developed business software using Excel for project portfolio management. The prototype was later scaled into a commercial SaaS that is now used globally.
Another memorable moment was when a property owner told me their Excel file grew so large that it ran out of rows and columns. That must have been before 2007, when the maximum number of columns on a sheet was still just 256 and the maximum number of rows was 65,536. The current limits are 1,048,576 rows and 16,384 columns, which I hope no one will exceed.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
U.S. Supreme Court Decision May Negate State Law Requirement to File a Certificate of Merit with the Complaint in a Federal Action Against a Design Professional
April 27, 2026 —
Christopher Olsen & Phillip Boldt - ConsensusDocsTo deter frivolous and unfounded claims against design professionals, states throughout the country have enacted statutes which generally require litigants to furnish a formal certification of merit (“COM”) from a qualified expert or face potential dismissal of their lawsuit. These COM statutes can impose a significant front-end burden on claimants who must pay an expert to review project records, interview the project team, and prepare a formal report before the lawsuit can be filed—often regardless of the amount in controversy. However, in light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in a medical malpractice case, most, if not all of these statutes, may no longer be enforceable in federal court. This article examines the recent decision in Berk v. Choy, 146 S. Ct. 546 (2026), the decisions thus far which have applied Berk to invalidate COM statutes, and other categories of statutes applicable to the construction industry which may face a similar fate.
The U.S. Supreme Court Decision (Berk v. Choy)
In Berk, the plaintiff, Harold Berk, sued a doctor for medical malpractice under Delaware law in Delaware federal court. 146 S. Ct. at 551. Under Del. Code, Tit. 18, § 6853(a)(1), an affidavit of merit (like a COM) must accompany a complaint alleging medical malpractice. Id. Berk failed to include an affidavit of merit with his complaint. Id. at 552. Applying Delaware state law, the federal court dismissed Berk’s medical malpractice claim. Berk appealed to the Third Circuit, arguing that the affidavit of merit required by § 6853(a)(1) is unenforceable in federal court because it is more onerous than the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling, finding § 6853(a)(1) enforceable in federal court.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Olsen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Phillip Boldt, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Olsen may be contacted at colsen@pecklaw.com
Mr. Boldt may be contacted at pboldt@pecklaw.com
Read the full story...
Beyond the Storm: How Non-Hurricane Catastrophes Expose Florida’s Construction Defect Blind Spot
August 11, 2026 —
Franchesco “Frank” Soto & Amanda L. Gonzalez - Ball JanikOn June 8, 2026, a magnitude 6.1 earthquake struck the Gulf near the coast of Cuba, the largest instrumentally recorded earthquake in the Gulf since seismic monitoring began in 1950. Buildings swayed, offices were evacuated, and many residents along the east coast of Florida, from Miami-Dade to Jacksonville, felt the ground shake. Although no tsunami followed and reported structural damage was limited, this event exposed a blind spot that Florida property owners, developers, and their counsel cannot afford to ignore: catastrophic stress on Florida buildings does not always come in the form of a named storm.
Florida property owners have grown accustomed to preparing for wind, storm surge, floods, and torrential rain. Far less attention is paid to earthquakes, sinkholes, tornadoes, hail, and non-tropical flooding, each of which can place unexpected stress on buildings not designed with those forces top of mind and can trigger deficiencies in buildings that were not otherwise known, expose design failures, and create an urgency for both insurance claims and subsequent litigation.
Non-Hurricane Triggers of Latent Defects
Seismic activity is the clearest example. Florida’s building code accounts for wind loads, not seismic forces, meaning even a moderate earthquake can reveal weaknesses in curtain wall systems, structural connections, or foundations that were already marginal. Sinkholes, driven by Florida’s karst limestone geology, remain a persistent threat, particularly in Central Florida, where subsurface voids can undermine foundations without warning. Non-tropical flooding, like the record rainfall that flooded South Florida in June 2024, can intrude through building envelopes and waterproofing systems that were never stress-tested for such volumes of water. Tornadoes and hail, while more localized, can cause roofing and envelope failures that mimic, mask, or trigger latent construction defects.
The Litigation and Coverage Disputes That Follow
When one of these events strikes a building already carrying undisclosed or unresolved construction defects, the resulting disputes become considerably more complex. Property owners and associations must move quickly to document existing conditions and distinguish damage caused by the event from pre-existing defective construction, the same causation issue that arises in the hurricane context under Chapter 558, but often without the benefit of established precedent or adjuster experience with these less common events.
Insurance coverage disputes frequently follow close behind. Carriers may dispute whether an earthquake, flood, or other peril is covered at all, particularly where policies contain earthquake or flood exclusions requiring separate endorsements, or anti-concurrent causation language that can bar coverage entirely when a covered peril combines with an uncovered one, such as pre-existing defective construction, to cause a loss. Sinkhole claims carry their own statutory framework under Florida law, requiring specific testing protocols and reporting before a claim is compensable. Developers and contractors, in turn, may find themselves defending Chapter 558 claims while simultaneously litigating with their own carriers over defense and indemnity obligations.
Practical Risk Mitigation Strategies
Property owners, associations, and developers can take several concrete steps to reduce their exposure. First, maintain thorough documentation, including engineering reports, maintenance logs, and photographs, well before any event occurs. This documentation is often the deciding factor in causation disputes. Second, engage structural engineers and consultants immediately following any seismic event, unusual flooding, or storm damage, regardless of whether a hurricane is involved. Prompt inspection preserves evidence and can help prevent inadvertent waiver of construction defect claims. Third, review insurance policies regularly with counsel or a broker to confirm earthquake, flood, and sinkhole coverage matches the property’s actual risk profile, rather than assuming a standard property policy responds to every peril. Fourth, avoid rushing to remediate before conditions are documented and/or before consulting counsel. Well-intentioned repairs can inadvertently compromise evidence needed to prove a defect claim.
The June earthquake was a reminder that Florida’s catastrophic risk profile extends beyond hurricane season. Property owners, associations, and developers who build readiness plans around all forms of catastrophic stress, not just named storms, will be far better positioned when the next unexpected event occurs.
Franchesco “Frank” Soto is a partner in
Ball Janik’s Construction Defect Practice Group in Miami. He may be reached at fsoto@balljanik.com.
Amanda L. Gonzalez is a litigation attorney in
Ball Janik’s Construction Defect Practice Group in Miami. She may be reached at agonzalez@balljanik.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.
OC Streetcar Project Mediation Sets $50M Payment to Walsh
July 20, 2026 —
Richard Korman - Engineering News-RecordWalsh Construction told a California state court judge last month that lawsuit mediation of its claims on an Orange County light-rail project—known as OC Streetcar—had produced a settlement of some claims under which the county agreed to pay the contractor almost an additional $50 million.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Richard Korman, Engineering News-RecordMr. Korman may be contacted at
kormanr@enr.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
GRSM Trial Team Holds Alameda County Asbestos Verdict to $900,000 Against $50 Million Demand
July 27, 2026 —
Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Partners John Katerndahl and Vincent Gunter recently obtained an outstanding trial result for a manufacturer of asbestos-containing electrical cable, holding a jury verdict to $900,000 against a $50 million demand following an eight-week trial in Alameda County Superior Court, which is among the most challenging asbestos venues in the country. The GRSM team also included Associate Brandon Sanchez, on-site trial Paralegal Laura Vitanova, and Paralegal Kerrie Lease.
The plaintiffs, the surviving spouse and four children of a former painter who died of mesothelioma, alleged that the decedent was exposed to asbestos from the company’s electrical cable during construction of a California nuclear power facility. GRSM’s client was the sole remaining defendant at trial. The plaintiffs asked the jury for $50 million and called 15 witnesses across their case-in-chief and rebuttal.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
EPA, Maryland Sue DC Water Over Massive Potomac River Sewage Spill
May 14, 2026 —
Jim Parsons - Engineering News-RecordThe state of Maryland and the federal government have filed separate lawsuits against the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DC Water), both alleging that the agency’s failure to address longstanding deterioration in the Potomac Interceptor contributed to a
weeklong release of more than 240 million gallons of raw sewage into the Potomac River this past January.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jim Parsons, Engineering News-RecordENR may be contacted at
enr@enr.com
