Why AI Data Centers Cost Billions to Build
November 02, 2026 —
Lynn Doan – BloombergRoughly $750 billion. That’s how much Meta Platforms Inc., Amazon.com Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Google owner Alphabet Inc. are expected to devote to capital expenditures this year alone.
That’s more than the entire gross domestic product of Ireland or Belgium. More than half of what all of the companies in the S&P 500 Index spent in total last year. Enough to cut a $5,500 check for every household in the US.
There was a time when John McWilliams, part of the research group at real estate services firm Cushman & Wakefield, would’ve found it impossible to imagine four companies spending that much, primarily on data centers, in a single year. “We’ve never seen it,” he said.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lynn Doan, Bloomberg
GRSM Defeats Class Certification in Precedent-Setting HOA Management Case
September 15, 2026 —
Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Partners Fletcher Alford and Kevin Liu and Associate Jigar Desai secured a favorable outcome on behalf of an HOA management company in a precedent-setting class action before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, obtaining denial of the plaintiff’s motion for class certification and dismissal without prejudice of the three claims at issue.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant received earnings credit payments from a bank in exchange for maintaining HOA deposit accounts and failed to disclose the arrangement to its HOA clients. The plaintiff sought more than $40 million in damages, asserting five claims: (1) breach of contract for failing to act in class members’ best interests by not disclosing the alleged earnings credit arrangement; (2) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) based on alleged violations of California Civil Code §§ 5375, 5375.5, and 5380; (3) breach of fiduciary duty based on the alleged undisclosed arrangement; (4) violation of the UCL for unfair business practices arising from the alleged nondisclosure; and (5) unjust enrichment. The plaintiff sought class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) only as to its second, third, and fourth causes of action.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
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
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...
Unable To Afford an Appellate Bond? You May Be “Indigent” And Qualify for a Discretionary Waiver or Reduction of the Bond Amount.
October 26, 2026 —
Suzanne M. Nicholson - Wilke FleuryOne of the most frequent questions asked when a client is considering taking an appeal from an adverse judgment or order is whether that judgment or order is stayed pending appeal. The answer, not surprisingly, is “it depends.” While the general rule is that perfecting an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court, including enforcement of the judgment or order, there are many, many, exceptions to that rule.
One such exception is a judgment or order for “money or the payment of money.” (CCP § 917.1) In such cases, a bond or undertaking is typically required to stay enforcement. The costs of such security can be significant. If you are using an admitted surety insurer, the amount of security required is 1 1/2 times the amount of the judgment. Obtaining a bond through an admitted surety will require that you have sufficient collateral to secure the bond, and sufficient funds to pay the associated premiums, which generally run between 1% and 3% of the total bond amount, per year. So, if you are appealing from a $1 million judgment, you will likely need $1.5 million in assets as collateral, and up to $30,000 per year for the premium.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Suzanne M. Nicholson, Wilke FleuryMs. Nicholson may be contacted at
snicholson@wilkefleury.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
Insurer Dispenses with Bad Faith Claim on Summary Judgment
June 22, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court granted the insurer’s motion for partial summary judgment because the insured failed to present evidence that the insurer failed to conduct a reasonable investigation. PSY Burger, LLC v. State Farm General Insurance Company, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66991(C.D. Cal. March 20, 2026).
The insured’s commercial property suffered heavy damage from tropical storm Hilary. State Farm denied coverage to repair the damage. The insured sued State Farm alleging breach of contract and bad faith due to an inadequate investigation. Apparently, the insured did not retain an expert to opine on claims handling.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Amanda Mathieu Named to Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly 2026 “Top Women of Law” List
September 21, 2026 —
Lewis BrisboisMassachusetts Lawyers Weekly recently named Boston Deputy Managing Partner Amanda Mathieu to its 2026 “Top Women of Law” list, which honors leaders who have shown excellence, innovation, and meaningful contributions to the industry and their communities.
According to the publication, “Top Women of Law honorees represent the very best of Massachusetts’ legal community—from accomplished advocates and firm leaders to pioneers, educators, trailblazers, and role models driving positive change throughout the profession. Their influence extends beyond the courtroom and boardroom, creating a lasting impact on their clients, colleagues, organizations, and communities.”
“We are lucky to have Amanda as a leader in our Boston office, and a mentor to so many Lewis Brisbois Associates who are getting their careers started in the legal profession” said Managing Partner Ken Walton on this recognition. “This is a well-deserved honor for her, and I look forward to continuing to continuing to work with her as we deliver excellent results for our clients across the country."
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
