Builders Risk/Construction All Risks and Delay in Start-Up Coverage for Large Energy Projects: Protecting Revenue Before Operations Begin
September 21, 2026 —
Will Bennett - SDV FenchurchThe Most Significant Loss May Be the Delay, Not the Damage
Power and energy projects are uniquely vulnerable to losses during construction. Whether the project involves a utility-scale solar facility, battery storage installation, a wind farm, transmission project, LNG terminal, or conventional generation facility, loss events in this sector often have consequences far more impactful than the actual cost of repairing damaged property.
Any number of construction losses can delay commercial operation of the facility by months, triggering lost revenues, financing impacts, contractual penalties, and investor concerns. In many cases, those delay-related losses significantly exceed the underlying repair costs.
Construction All Risk (“CAR”) insurance and Delay in Start-Up (“DSU”) coverage are designed to respond to these exposures. However, recovering delay-related losses is far more complicated than many insureds anticipate, particularly when projects involve international stakeholders, global supply chains, and London market insurance placements.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Will Bennett, SDV FenchurchMr. Bennett may be contacted at
will.bennett@sdvfenchurch.us
Sometimes a General Damages Assessment is Enough. . .
July 06, 2026 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIt has been a while since I last posted here at
Construction Law Musings. Life, law practice, and “blogger’s block” have taken their toll on the posting schedule. Hopefully this will be one of several upcoming posts now that the litigation schedule has lightened a bit over the summer.
Today’s post is about damages. Specifically damage to a homeowner’s roof and her legal damages therefor. That last is of course a sentence that only a
construction attorney (or other litigator) could possibly craft and have it make sense. Now, on with the case. . .In
Hardesty Construction, Inc. v. Weedon, the facts are as follows:
Ms. Weedon had hail damage to the roof of her home. She hired Hardesty Construction to repair and replace the roof. After the first roof was installed and failed inspection, a second roof was installed. The issue was that the first roof had a warranty and the second roof, installed similarly to the first (and allegedly with the same construction issues according to Ms. Weedon’s expert), was not provided with the promised warranty. As one may expect, Weedon sued Hardesty and Hardesty Construction for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract. At trial, Weedon testified, without objection, that her home was worth $40,000 less because of Hardesty Construction’s work, which was based partially on quotes Weedon received to fix the roof. The Circuit Court granted Hardesty Construction’s motion to strike Weedon’s fraudulent inducement claim, but not her other claims. A jury awarded Weedon $30,253.30 on her breach of contract claim. Hardesty Construction appealed, arguing the Circuit Court erred in (a) allowing the jury to consider Weedon’s valuation testimony because it was not based on her personal knowledge and (b) denying its motion to strike based on insufficient evidence as to damages. Weedon assigned cross-error in the Circuit Court’s decision to grant the motion to strike her fraudulent inducement claim against Samual Hardesty.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
From CERCLA to Drinking Water: D.C. Circuit’s PFAS Ruling Enters a Second Regulatory Fight
October 06, 2026 —
Ashleigh K. Myers, Amanda G. Halter & Jillian Marullo - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogOn August 18, 2026, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
upheld EPA’s designation of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund). In Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. EPA, the court rejected challenges to EPA’s interpretation of CERCLA Section 102(a), the adequacy of its notice and comment process, its analysis of costs and benefits, and its decision to proceed despite uncertainty about future response actions and costs.
This decision is already being invoked in a separate D.C. Circuit challenge to EPA’s 2024 PFAS drinking water rule promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Six days after the CERCLA decision, respondent intervenors cited it as supplemental authority in American Water Works Association v. EPA, No. 24-1188, ahead of oral argument scheduled for
September 18, 2026. The Chamber of Commerce decision may assist the respondent intervenors on certain notice and comment and economic analysis arguments, but its significance should not be overstated. The principal challenges to the standards for the four PFAS subject to EPA’s Hazard Index-based maximum contaminant level (MCL) turn on requirements specific to the SDWA, and EPA itself now agrees that those provisions were promulgated through an unlawful process.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ashleigh K. Myers, Pillsbury,
Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury and
Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury
Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com
Read the full story...
Micromobility in Smart Cities: Keeping the Wheels in Motion
May 26, 2026 —
James P. Bobotek - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogMobility is the lifeblood of any city. How people are able to travel in, out and within a metropolitan area is vital to its citizens, businesses, supply chains and social services. And as U.S. cities have expanded in size and population density, the strategies for addressing mobility have evolved. Many have taken different approaches to public transit, and each city boasts a dense tapestry of roadways, walking paths and various parking options. But as cities continue to reexamine infrastructure strategies through smart city technology, a new field of transportation has emerged—micromobility.
Designed for short-distance travel using lightweight vehicles (bikes, e-bikes, e-scooters, etc.), the industry’s global net worth has grown exponentially in recent years to the tune of hundreds of billions, with one forecast predicting it could reach
$340 billion by 2030. Micromobility also finds itself at the forefront of various smart city technological improvements. Geofencing has been implemented in
U.S. cities to determine where micromobility vehicles can operate, control speed limits, and park utilizing the vehicles’ GPS location. Internet of Things (IoT) technologies (satellite-based location receivers, cloud communication, internet links, etc.) have
improved vehicle lifespans by keeping track of when vehicles require service and prevent vandalism and theft. Data collected from vehicles’ location tracking is routinely used for
urban planning and smart city development.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James P. Bobotek, PillsburyMr. Bobotek may be contacted at
james.bobotek@pillsburylaw.com
My Current Love-Hate Relationship with AI
June 08, 2026 —
Garret D. Murai - California Construction Law BlogIt’s early in the relationship, I know. But still, there are some things that bug me. Yet, I also know that it’s a relationship in which leaving is not an option, and even if I could, it’s not to the point where it’s so bad that I would do so. So, if you would, let me gripe a bit.
While there’s been much discussion about AI and, at least in my neck of the woods, a fair amount of discussion about how lawyers can, should, and must use AI or risk becoming discarded into the dustbin of history, much less has been written about clients’ use of AI.
Increasingly, I’ve gotten the sense that my clients are using AI. For example, I had a client ask for confirmation that if he disagreed with an administrative decision that he could file a writ of mandate, and if so, whether that deadline was 30, 60 or 90 days after the administrative decision. The answer to the first question was yes, and as to the second question, the answer was 90 days. This was from a client who, smart as he is, probably didn’t know this off the top of his head.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret D. Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Segal McCambridge Shareholders and Associates Recognized in 2027 Best Lawyers in America®
September 01, 2026 —
Segal McCambridgeSegal McCambridge is pleased to announce that 24 firm shareholders and associates have been recognized in the 2027 editions of the Best Lawyers in America® and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. Best Lawyers® is an elite global network of legal professionals recognized through a trusted, peer-reviewed distinction. For more than four decades, its Purely Peer Review® methodology has upheld the principle that recognition should be earned through the opinions of fellow attorneys, not marketing influence or paid listings. No fees are accepted for consideration or inclusion.
"This Best Lawyers recognition is especially meaningful because it reflects the caliber of advocacy our attorneys bring to clients every day, across a wide range of practice areas," said Jason P. Eckerly, Segal McCambridge Managing Shareholder. "We are proud to see so many of our colleagues honored for their legal skills, dedication, and professionalism. This continued recognition underscores the strength of our national platform and the depth of talent across our firm."
Segal McCambridge's attorneys named in Best Lawyers in America® include:
Jason P. Eckerly; Chicago, IL; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
Scott R. Emery; New York, NY; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants
Jay Evans; Pittsburgh, PA; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
Richard H. Glucksman; Los Angeles, CA; Construction Law
Nathan R. Horne; Austin, TX; Construction Law; Litigation - Construction
Alice Sacks Johnston; Pittsburgh, PA; Commercial Litigation; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
Patrick M. Kemp; Austin, TX; Litigation - Insurance
Mitchell P. Morinec; Chicago, IL; Commercial Litigation
Anthony J. Sbarra, Jr.; Milton, MA; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
Alan J. Taylor; Southfield, MI; Litigation - Construction; Real Estate Law
Kenneth P. Williams; Southfield, MI; Insurance Law; Litigation - Insurance; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
David J. Yates; Southfield, MI; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Segal McCambridge's attorneys named in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America® include:
Masood Syed Ali; Chicago, IL; Labor and Employment Law - Management
Mari Bryn Dowdy; Austin, TX; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
Chaniece M. Hill; Chicago, IL; Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants
Mandy Kolodkin; Indianapolis, IN; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Jeffrey M. Marchese; New York, NY; Litigation - Construction
Courtney C. McLaren; Memphis, TN; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Benjamin J. Nellans; Chicago, IL; Commercial Litigation
Christopher P. Norton; Los Angeles, CA; Commercial Litigation
Nelson T. Rainey; Memphis, TN; Family Law; Health Care Law; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Nicholas E. Richardson; Tampa, FL; Insurance Law
Jordan B. Rosenberg; Philadelphia, PA; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Ian M. Sadler; Austin, TX; Commercial Litigation; Insurance Law
About Best Lawyers®
Best Lawyers® is an elite global network of legal professionals recognized through trusted, peer-reviewed distinction. For over four decades, its Purely Peer Review® methodology has upheld the principle that recognition should be earned through the opinions of fellow attorneys, not marketing influence or paid listings. Each year, millions of confidential evaluations are collected worldwide, contributing to one of the legal industry's most rigorous and trusted vetting processes. Only about 5% of lawyers in the United States and 3% globally are recognized, reflecting the selectivity and credibility of the results. No fees are accepted for consideration or inclusion, maintaining the integrity and independence of all recognitions. For more information, visit: www.bestlawyers.com.
About Segal McCambridge
Segal McCambridge has built a reputation as a national law firm of accomplished trial attorneys for almost four decades. Founded in 1986, the firm has grown from a four-lawyer shop in Chicago to a firm with more than 20 offices nationwide. The firm routinely counsels and defends clients, including Fortune 500 companies, corporations, and individuals, across the United States in complex litigation matters including, but not limited to: asbestos, class action, construction, employment, environmental, food and beverage, insurance coverage and bad faith, life sciences, product liability, professional liability, technology and cyber risk, transportation, and warranty. For more information, visit: www.segalmccambridge.com.
A Green Light for Housing? What Executive Order 14394 Means for Your Next Project
May 26, 2026 —
Bennett Houck, Miranda Martinez & Byron Sarhangian - Snell & WilmerOn March 13, 2026, President Trump signed Executive Order 14394, “Removing Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Home Construction” (the “Order”). The Order directs federal agencies to reduce regulatory burdens on residential development, streamline environmental permitting, and encourage state and local governments to adopt housing-friendly policies.
The Order includes several key provisions that developers and homebuilders should be aware of moving forward.
Key Provisions
The Order targets four main areas:
1. Federal Environmental Regulations
First, it directs the Secretary of the Army and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to revise permitting standards, including stormwater permits, wetlands permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and related construction-site requirements. The Order also targets energy-efficiency mandates for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) financed housing. For developers and homebuilders, these revisions could reduce project delays and compliance costs associated with stormwater management, wetlands mitigation, and energy-efficiency upgrades, expenses that often add significant time and cost to residential development projects.
Reprinted courtesy of
Bennett Houck, Snell & Wilmer,
Miranda Martinez, Snell & Wilmer and
Byron Sarhangian, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Houck may be contacted at bhouck@swlaw.com
Ms. Martinez may be contacted at mimartinez@swlaw.com
Mr. Sarhangian may be contacted at bsarhangian@swlaw.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
