Managing Rising Costs and Shifting Legal Risk for Florida High-Rise and Condominium Projects
May 05, 2026 —
Stephen Hauptman - Ball Janik LLPFlorida's construction defect landscape is experiencing a major shift. The convergence of material and labor cost volatility, regulatory tightening, and increasingly complex litigation strategies is forcing associations, developers, and their counsel to rethink how they approach risk management and dispute resolution. For those managing large-scale condo and high-rise projects, the stakes have never been higher.
The Cost Volatility Trap
Construction material prices rose at a "staggering" 12.6% annualized rate during the first two months of 2026, according to
recent industry analysis. Tariff impacts are projected to lead to more increases of 5.4% to 6.8%, depending on property type. For associations facing construction defect claims, this volatility creates a cascading problem: repair scopes defined two years ago are now dramatically underpriced, and damage calculations that appeared reasonable at discovery are obsolete by the time of settlement.
Courts and mediators are increasingly scrutinizing how cost estimates were developed and whether they account for existing market circumstances. Associations must now commission updated repair assessments more frequently, a practice that increases investigation costs but strengthens the credibility of damage claims. Conversely, defendants are weaponizing cost inflation as a defense, arguing that claimed damages are speculative or inflated. The practical result: repair sequencing and phasing strategies have become critical litigation tools. Associations that can demonstrate a rational, cost-effective repair plan tied to current market data are more favorably placed in settlement negotiations.
Regulatory Pressure and Deliberate Timing
Florida's 2026 condo compliance regime has significantly changed the defect claims landscape. Elevated transparency requirements, stricter reserve funding mandates, and tightened building safety inspection protocols mean that associations now face dual pressures: Comply with new regulations while simultaneously handling construction defect exposure.
This regulatory environment is changing investigation and documentation strategy. Associations that delay defect investigation to avoid triggering reserve funding obligations or disclosure requirements are taking on considerable legal risk. Recent case law such as the Third District Court of Appeal's reaffirmation of Chapter 558's pre-suit mediation requirements, underscores Florida's intent to resolve disputes early. Associations that move deliberately and record carefully during the pre-suit phase gain leverage in mediation and reduce the risk of expensive litigation.
Timing also intersects with repair sequencing. Associations must now balance the urgency of compliance inspections against the strategic advantage of phased repairs. Some associations are using compliance deadlines as a forcing mechanism to accelerate settlement discussions, while others are sequencing repairs to demonstrate good-faith remediation efforts before litigation commences.
The Emerging Risk Transfer Challenge
As construction defect claims grow more complex and costly, the traditional risk transfer systems, such as design-build warranties, contractor bonds, and insurance, are proving inadequate. Developers and general contractors are increasingly shifting risk to subcontractors and material suppliers, fragmenting liability and complicating recovery efforts for associations. Permitting and approval friction is also creating new litigation pressure points. Delays in municipal approvals, changes to building code interpretations, and disputes over remedial work compliance continue to spawn collateral claims that go beyond the original defect. Associations must now anticipate not only defect liability but also regulatory compliance disputes with municipalities, creating a dual-front legal challenge.
For large communities, this means reconsidering the entire risk architecture. Insurance carriers are tightening coverage, and traditional indemnification chains are breaking down. Forward-thinking associations are engaging counsel earlier in the development process to negotiate clearer risk allocation provisions and more robust insurance requirements.
Taking a Data-Driven Approach
Managing rising costs and shifting legal risk in Florida's high-rise and condo market requires a more sophisticated, data-driven approach. Associations must commission frequent cost updates, move deliberately through pre-suit investigation and mediation, and challenge traditional assumptions about risk transfer. Developers and their counsel should view regulatory compliance not as a burden but as an opportunity to demonstrate good-faith risk management and strengthen settlement positioning.
The firms and associations that succeed in 2026 will be those that treat cost volatility, regulatory change, and litigation strategy not as separate challenges but as linked elements of a coherent risk management framework.
Stephen Hauptman is special counsel in Ball Janik LLP’s Fort Lauderdale office. He may be reached at shauptman@balljanik.com.
Benchmark Litigation Recognizes Multiple Snell & Wilmer Offices and Attorneys in 2026 Rankings
December 02, 2025 —
Snell & WilmerPHOENIX - Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that Benchmark Litigation, a publication that focuses exclusively on dispute resolution and litigation, has once again recognized multiple Snell & Wilmer offices, as well as eleven of the firm’s attorneys, in its annual U.S. edition rankings issue.
Benchmark Litigation is the only publication on the market to focus exclusively on litigation work. Benchmark compiles its results from a culmination of a six-month research period where researchers conduct extensive interviews with litigators and their clients to identify the leading litigators and firms. During these interviews, researchers examine recent casework handled by law firms and ask individual litigators to offer their professional opinions on peers. Firms cannot pay to be recommended for the guide.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Snell & Wilmer
How to Properly Fill Out and Use the Unconditional Waiver and Release on Final Payment Form Used in California Construction
January 05, 2026 —
William L. Porter - Porter Law GroupThis is the fourth article in a series of four articles discussing how to properly fill out the four California construction releases described in California Civil Code 8132 – 8138.
Let me start by noting that in addition to practicing construction law for more than 35 years, I chaired the committee of California construction attorneys who revised those sections of the California Civil Code dealing with this release form and many other construction forms as part of Senate Bill 189 in 2010. I also wrote the first version of this release form and made it free to the public well before the new law took effect in 2012. With this background, let me note a few things about the Unconditional Waiver and Release on Progress Payment form to help you avoid mistakes that might prevent you from achieving the intended effect of the form or releasing claim rights to a greater extent than you intend.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Porter, Porter Law GroupMr. Porter may be contacted at
bporter@porterlaw.com
Washington Court of Appeals Narrows Arbitrator Authority in Construction Dispute
November 21, 2025 —
Joshua Lane - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCIn a recent opinion, Division III of the Washington Court of Appeals clarified arbitrator limits in Reecer Creek Excavating v. SRI-Rochlin Construction JV,
[1] holding that consequential damage waivers are enforceable, fee-shifting depends on who “substantially prevails,” and arbitration awards can be vacated only in narrow circumstances.
Reecer Creek Excavating (“Reecer”) was subcontracted by SRI-Rochlin Construction JV (“SRI”) to perform excavation and paving work on a housing development in Ellensburg, Washington. When payment disputes arose, both parties filed breach-of-contract claims and later agreed to private arbitration. Their arbitration agreement included terms mandating that “the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs” and providing for an exception to the finality of the award where the arbitrator exceeded its authority.
After a multi-day arbitration, the arbitrator found both parties partly at fault - Reecer for incomplete and defective work, and SRI for withholding certain payments. The net award favored Reecer by about $55,000, with each side ordered to bear its own attorney’s fees.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Joshua Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Lane may be contacted at
joshua.lane@acslawyers.com
“Number nine, Number nine…”: Newark Trial Team Obtains “No Cause” Verdict in Ninth Trial of Year
December 15, 2025 —
Lewis Brisbois NewsroomNewark, N.J. (October 21, 2025) - Starting their ninth trial of the year – eight juries, one bench – the trial team of Newark Partner Afsha Noran and Managing Partner Colin P. Hackett recently obtained a “No Cause” verdict for a national owner, developer, builder, and operator of real estate.
While the trial was relatively short, totaling four days and eight witnesses, the “No Cause” verdict was nonetheless gratifying for the client and the New Jersey trial team. As in any slip/trip/fall action, the plaintiff alleged the firm client failed to properly maintain their retail space, which led to the plaintiff slipping, falling and fracturing a femoral condyle bone. This resulted in the plaintiff undergoing surgery and being wheelchair bound for over three months, as well as needing home modifications consisting of an exterior home ramp and commode. The plaintiff’s expert opined that the plaintiff was, is, and will continue to be in pain for the rest of her life, and will require pain management treatment and a future knee replacement.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
New York Amends Prompt Payment Act: Retainage Above 5% in Private Construction Contracts Now Void
February 10, 2026 —
Mark A. Snyder, Levi W. Barrett, Patrick T. Murray & Skyler L. Santomartino - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.In 2023 New York overhauled its Prompt Payment Act. The
2023 amendments, largely aimed at restricting the amount of retainage that can be withheld on private projects, were unclear about whether parties could contract around the statute, as they can with other provisions of the statute. The State Legislature recently clarified that issue.
On December 19, 2025, New York enacted a new law, tightening the State’s Prompt Payment Act retainage laws by amending the Prompt Payment Act under General Business Law § 757. Under § 757, the new law renders void any contract provision in private construction contracts that requires retainage in excess of 5% of the total contract sum, meaning owners cannot hold more than 5% from their prime contractors and prime contractors cannot hold more than 5% from their subcontractors.
Reprinted courtesy of
Mark A. Snyder, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.,
Levi W. Barrett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.,
Patrick T. Murray, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Skyler L. Santomartino, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Snyder may be contacted at msnyder@pecklaw.com
Mr. Barrett may be contacted at lbarrett@pecklaw.com
Mr. Murray may be contacted at pmurray@pecklaw.com
Mr. Santomartino may be contacted at ssantomartino@pecklaw.com
Read the full story...
FTC Issues Warning Letters to Property Management Software Providers on Price Transparency
January 26, 2026 —
Christine Tenley, Patrick A. Garcia & Michael Hettig - Lewis BrisboisAtlanta, Ga. (December 23, 2025) - On December 8, 2025 the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) sent what it is describing as a “Warning Letter” to companies that provide property management software to landlords (“Software Providers”). While the letter does not speak specifically to landlords, landlords can still use the information contained in the letter to adopt best practices to avoid potential enforcement action.
The Warning Letter references two high profile civil enforcement actions the FTC has undertaken in the last two years: FTC v. Invitation Homes, and FTC v. Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC, et al., two cases in which the FTC targeted landlords for what it deemed unfair or deceptive advertising practices. Citing those cases, the FTC warns software providers that they must provide platforms on which landlords can accurately advertise the total monthly cost of a rental property rather than simply advertising the monthly rental payment. The FTC then warns that failure to create platforms that share the total monthly payments may result in enforcement action.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christine Tenley, Lewis Brisbois,
Patrick A. Garcia, Lewis Brisbois and
Michael Hettig, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Tenley may be contacted at Christine.Tenley@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Garcia may be contacted at Patrick.Garcia@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Hettig may be contacted at Michael.Hettig@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the full story...
Government Claiming Contract Is Void Ab Initio by Contractor Knowingly Making False Statements
January 06, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesCan the federal government declare a contract “void ab initio” or void from the beginning? Yes, if the government can “prove that the contractor (a) obtained the contract by (b) knowingly (c) making a false statement.” MLB Transportation v. U.S., 2025 WL 2962897, *8 (Fed.Cl. 2025) (citation omitted).
Where a contractor “obtained [a] contract by knowingly falsely stating that it was a small business … [the] government contract [is] tainted from its inception by fraud [and] is void ab initio.” The general rule that “a Government contract tainted by fraud or wrong-doing is void ab initio … protects the integrity of the federal contracting process and safeguards the public from undetectable threats to the public fisc.” A contract found to be void ab initio has “no legal effect,” and is “[n]ull from the beginning, as from the first moment when a contract is entered into.”
MLB Transportation, supra (citations omitted).
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
