Federal Court Strikes Down New York’s Climate Superfund Act: What It Means for the “Polluter Pays” Movement
September 28, 2026 —
Amanda G. Halter, Ashleigh K. Myers & Jillian Marullo - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogA federal judge in the Northern District of New York has struck down New York’s
Climate Change Superfund Act, ruling that the “polluter pays” climate law is preempted by federal law and “simply beyond the limits of state law.” The court concluded that the Clean Air Act (CAA) does not authorize New York’s compensation scheme, which calculates liability based on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions attributable to worldwide fossil fuel extraction and refining. It separately held that any cost-recovery demand against a foreign producer would be preempted under the constitutional foreign affairs doctrine, which limits state intrusion into matters committed predominantly to the federal government. The court directed the parties to file a status report by September 14, leaving the form of further relief unresolved. In practical terms, the court has decided that the Act is preempted and cannot be enforced but has not yet determined the precise terms of its final order, including whether to formally enjoin its enforcement.
The
decision in West Virginia v. James, Case No. 1:25-cv-00168 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2026), issued by Chief U.S. District Judge Brenda K. Sannes, who was appointed by President Obama, marks the first judicial invalidation of a state climate superfund statute and carries significant implications for the
climate superfund landscape and the three remaining
lawsuits challenging these laws.
Reprinted courtesy of
Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury,
Ashleigh K. Myers, Pillsbury and
Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury
Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com
Read the full story...
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
GRSM Secures Illinois Appellate Victory for Architectural Firm in Implied Warranty Dispute
May 14, 2026 —
Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Partner Jonathan Federman, Partner Thomas Cronin, and Senior Counsel Garrett Lee recently secured a victory in the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District, on behalf of the firm’s client, an architectural firm, in a liability dispute.
The case arose following an entity’s purchase of a 111-unit building for use as an investment or rental property. The plaintiff made claims against the architect of the building, alleging that there were design defects that breached an implied warranty, as well as a negligence claim.
GRSM argued that an architect could not be liable for implied warranties, particularly for an implied warranty which no Illinois court has ever recognized. GRSM further argued that Illinois law bars an architect from liability for negligence arising from a duty pursuant to contract under the economic loss doctrine.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Federal Court Pauses New Mexico PFAS Labeling Rule, but Not Its Bans or Reporting Deadline
October 26, 2026 —
Ashleigh K. Myers, Jillian Marullo & Claudia Vetesi - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogAs we
previously reported, New Mexico adopted novel product labeling requirements that would require manufacturers to display a PFAS flask symbol on covered products. Those requirements are now on hold. A coalition of industry associations led by the American Chemistry Council sued in federal court, arguing that the mandate unconstitutionally compels speech in violation of the First Amendment. On September 16, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico
preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the labeling rule while the case, American Chemistry Council v. Kenney, No. 1:26-cv-02130-MIS-SCY, proceeds. The court found the challengers likely to succeed because New Mexico had not shown a reasonable fit between the label and its interests in protecting consumer health and the environment.
A Broad Rule Built Around One Symbol
New Mexico enacted its
PFAS Protection Act in April 2025, joining Maine and Minnesota as the third state to adopt broad reporting requirements and eventual sales restrictions for products containing intentionally added per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Act also authorized the Environmental Improvement Board to require PFAS labels on products. The Board’s
implementing rule, which became effective July 1, 2026, specified the exact format of the label and how it had to appear.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ashleigh K. Myers, Pillsbury,
Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury and
Claudia Vetesi, Pillsbury
Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Vetesi may be contacted at claudia.vetesi@pillsburylaw.com
Read the full story...
The Deadline to File Suit on a Public Works Payment Payment Bond is Triggered by a Claimant’s Work on a Project Not by a Claimant’s Work Under a Contract
June 02, 2026 —
Garret D. Murai - California Construction Law BlogCalifornia law requires that prime contractors furnish a payment bond – providing for payment to lower-tiered subcontractors and suppliers – on state and local public works projects with a value in excess of $25,000. There are three conditions that must be satisfied when a claimant makes a claim against a payment bond on a public works project in California:
- First, generally, the claimant must have served a preliminary notice, unless the claimant is a first-tier subcontractor or supplier;
- The claimant must have “ceased to provide work” on the project; and
- The claimant must file suit against the payment bond no later than six (6) months after the period in which a stop payment notice must be given or, in other words, the earlier of 270 days after completion of the public works project or 210 days after a notice of completion or cessation was recorded on a public works project.
In
Tarlton & Sons, Inc. v. Great American Insurance Company, 111 Cal.App.5th 376 (2025), the 2nd District Court of Appeal examined whether a subcontractor timely filed a claim against a payment bond when a prime contractor was terminated and replaced by another prime contractor who the subcontractor continued to perform work for.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret D. Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Insurer Cannot Raise Issues on Appeal that Were Not Presented to the Trial Court
June 15, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Florida Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment on a collapse claim for the insured, rejecting the insurer’s arguments that were not presented to the trial court. Homeowner’s Choice Prop. & Cas. Ins, Co. v. Oakes, 2026 Fl. App. LEXIS 2086 (Fl. Ct. App. March 18, 2026).
The insured’s ceiling collapsed in the secondary home on the insured’s property. The claim was reported to the insurer, but coverage was denied after its investigation.
The insured sued the insurer for breach of contract. Under the Additional Coverage provisions of the policy, collapse was covered if it was “abrupt.” An abrupt collapse was not covered, however, if exclusions for “Fungi, Wet or Dry Rot” and “faulty, inadequate or defective design, specifications, workmanship, repair, construction, renovation, remodeling, materials or maintenance” applied. The collapse provisions contained no language stating that the coverage granted in the provision was also subject to all the other exclusions in the policy.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Miller Act Payment Bond Claim “No Nos!”
October 06, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent federal district court opinion, Sauer Construction, LLC v. United Structures of Georgia, LLC, 2026 WL 2522849 (M.D.Fla. 2026), addressed two worthy considerations when it comes to a Miller Act payment bond claim. And, when I am talking about considerations, I am really talking about “no-nos.” These are things you don’t do.
First, don’t file an untimely Miller Act payment bond lawsuit. Make sure, as a claimant, you file that lawsuit within one year from your final furnishing. In this case, the subcontractor claimant did not and tried to argue around the statute of limitations with an equitable tolling argument, i.e., that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled to accommodate the late filing of the lawsuit. Guess what? The subcontractor was not successful. You are fighting an uphill (losing) battle when arguing equitable tolling because “traditional equitable tolling principles require that the claimant demonstrate extraordinary circumstances, such as fraud, misinformation, or deliberate concealment.” Sauer Construction, supra. This means you need ultra-persuasive evidence to support such equitable tolling principles. Actually, having this evidence is doubtful. Thus, timely file the Miller Act payment bond lawsuit. There is no legitimate reason not to.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Texas Prepares to Restart Data Center Construction, with Around 300 Projects Under Review And 6,608 MW Awaiting Energization Approval, Driving Demand for Rapid-Response Lifting Operations
October 20, 2026 —
SarensTexas is experiencing an unprecedented increase in power demand. The ERCOT (Electric Reliability Council of Texas) power grid reached a record peak demand of 91.1 GW in summer 2026, 6% above the previous record, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). This is compounded by interconnection requests totaling around 474 GW, more than five times the record peak, with approximately 90% of these requests related to data centers, according to the Office of the Governor of Texas. Within this context, authorities have launched a comprehensive review process. In August , the Governor directed the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) and ERCOT to audit all data centers progressing toward grid connection, covering around 300 projects. ERCOT has also suspended approvals to energize data centers of 75 MW or more and has set December 10 as the date for the publication of its reports.
For the industry, this pause creates a valuable planning window. Goldman Sachs notes that it takes 18 to 24 months to build a data center once permits have been secured, while only 50% to 60% of planned capacity is delivered on schedule. Supply chain constraints and labor shortages are among the most common causes of delays. In this context, construction agility is becoming increasingly critical. A one-month delay at a typical 60 MW U.S. data center is estimated to cost up to $14.2 million in lost revenue, additional costs and penalties, according to STL Partners data. Against this backdrop, Sarens, which has operated in the U.S. since 2009 and is headquartered in Houston, with offices also in Odessa and Beaumont, positions as a logistics partner for developers and contractors preparing for the execution phase.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sarens
