California Enacts Change Order Fair Payment Act
March 24, 2026 —
Michael J. Baker - Snell & WilmerFor private works construction contracts entered on or after January 1, 2026, recent legislation establishes a claims and dispute resolution process for change orders. The law is codified at Civil Code § 8850. A synopsis of the pertinent provisions includes the following:
- Submitting a Claim. Contractors or subcontractors must submit a detailed, documented claim when requesting additional time or payment.
- Owner’s Response Time. The owner must meet and confer within thirty (30) days after receiving the claim. Within ten (10) days of meeting, the owner must provide a written statement identifying which portions of the claim are undisputed and which are disputed. An owner’s failure to respond is treated as disputing the entire claim.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael J. Baker, Snell & WilmerMr. Baker may be contacted at
mjbaker@swlaw.com
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.
Amended Again?! Critical Changes to RPAPL § 881: What New York Contractors and Construction Managers Need to Know
March 10, 2026 —
Mark A. Snyder & David Polazzi - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Recent amendments to New York’s RPAPL § 881 will significantly change how project teams obtain and maintain access to adjoining properties for construction-related work. The 2025 amendment signed into law by Governor Hochul, and the newly enacted 2026 revisions, will directly impact general contractors (GCs) and construction managers (CMs), as well as their trade contractors who regularly confront neighbor‑access, support‑of‑excavation, and protection‑of‑adjoining‑property challenges. Although we do not advise that GCs and CMs get involved in the “weeds” of license agreements or the prosecution of an action to obtain access pursuant to an RPAPL § 881 action, which are typically owner responsibilities, GCs and CMs should understand the change in law, as there may be circumstances where they are responsible for securing access.
This alert outlines the key statutory changes and explains the operational, scheduling, insurance, and risk‑management implications for the New York construction industry.
Reprinted courtesy of
Mark A. Snyder, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
David Polazzi, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Snyder may be contacted at msnyder@pecklaw.com
Mr. Polazzi may be contacted at dpolazzi@pecklaw.com
Read the full story...
Are “Financial Hardship” Damages Recoverable?
June 08, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn a case out of the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, F.O.G., LLC v. Department of the Interior, CBCA 8203, 2026 WL 1191881 (CBCA 2026) a contractor claimed damages that included “financial hardship” damages due to slow payments. The financial hardship damages included personal damages to the contractor’s president and his wife. Are these damages recoverable? Drumroll…The Board ruled that the contractor cannot recover such financial hardship damages.
As it relates the personal financial hardship damages, the Board ruled, “Neither [the contractor’s] president nor his wife are a party to this contract, are in privity of contract with [the government], or are the beneficiaries under this contract. [The contractor], therefore, cannot recover for any losses that either one has suffered individually and that [the contractor] claimed in this appeal.” F.O.G., LLC, supra.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Moving in Before Substantial Completion? The Risks of Early Owner Occupancy
March 24, 2026 —
Sydney Koby - ConsensusDocsIntroduction
On many construction projects, particularly large projects facing schedule pressure, owners may begin occupying or using portions of the project before the work reaches substantial completion. This is often due to operational needs, phased turnover, or market demands that drive owners to take possession of all or part of a project while construction activities are ongoing. While early occupancy may seem practical, it can blur the lines of responsibility between owner and contractor and can create significant legal and practical complications.
These disputes are especially common on large, complex projects where punch list work, system commissioning, and closeout activities overlap with owner use. Without clear documentation and carefully drafted contract provisions, early occupancy can undermine an owner’s ability to enforce completion requirements while simultaneously exposing the contractor to claims of delay, inefficiency, or interference.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sydney Koby, Jones WalkerMs. Koby may be contacted at
skoby@joneswalker.com
Maryland Enacts Climate-Cost Study Over Veto, New Jersey Advances Climate Superfund Proposal as Earlier State Laws Face Ongoing Court Challenges
January 21, 2026 —
Amanda G. Halter, Ashleigh Myers & Jillian Marullo - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogMaryland lawmakers have overridden the governor’s veto to enact legislation directing a statewide assessment of climate-related costs, while New Jersey lawmakers are preparing a January committee hearing for the State’s pending Climate Superfund Act. Together, these actions underscore continued state-level interest in both study-based and liability-focused climate-cost attribution frameworks, even as four separate lawsuits challenging state climate superfund statutes in New York and Vermont proceed in federal court.
Maryland Legislature Overrides Veto to Advance Climate-Cost Assessment
On December 16, the Maryland General Assembly voted to override Governor Wes Moore’s veto of S.B. 149 / H.B. 128, the “Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation – Total Assessed Cost of Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Study and Reports” Act. The vote followed the Governor’s announcement, just days earlier, that his administration would fully fund the study mandated by the bill, effectively reversing his prior veto.
Reprinted courtesy of
Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury,
Ashleigh 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...
Differing Site Conditions Claim Requires a Misrepresentation
May 14, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIf you are entertaining a
differing site conditions claim, consider this Third District Court of Appeals case from the mid-90s.
In Hendry Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 648 So.2d 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), a contractor was hired by Dade County to demolish the old Rickenbacker Causeway in Miami. The original 1941 plans of the causeway were made available to contractors. The lowest bidding contractor that was awarded the project based its bid “on its conclusion that the pilings supporting the old bridge were made of concrete.” Hendry, supra at 141. The contractor based this conclusion on the original plans, its visual observation, and experience.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Subrogation Insight: Expert Testimony Admissible Despite Post-Loss Repairs
December 30, 2025 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Ghaznavi v. Arby Constr., Inc., No. 14-24-00213-CV, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 839, the Court of Appeals of Texas (Court of Appeals) considered whether the trial court properly excluded the plaintiffs’, Kambiz Moavenzadeh Ghaznavi and Anahita Nokkonejad (collectively, the Ghaznavis), liability expert. The case arose from a fire at the Ghaznavis’ residence. The trial court held that because the Ghaznavis’ expert did not physically inspect certain fire damaged areas before they were repaired, the expert’s testimony was unreliable and thus inadmissible. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s ruling, finding that the expert’s review of photographs of the repaired areas and his testimony explaining his opinions were sufficient to survive summary judgment.
In this case, the Ghaznavis’ hired the defendant, Arby Construction Inc. d/b/a National Residential Services (Arby Constr.), to install new tiling in a corridor inside their home. The corridor was adjacent to the garage. While Arby Constr. was performing the work, the Ghaznavis asked the defendant to fix an outlet inside the garage that was not working. Arby Constr. installed a new wire that connected the outlet to the garage door opener at the ceiling of the garage. Less than 2 months later, a fire occurred in the garage area. The fire marshal placed the origin of the fire in the ceiling of the corridor adjacent to the garage. The fire marshal’s report stated that “faulty wiring in the corridor behind the garage” caused the fire.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and WilliamsMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
