At the Intersection of Indemnity and Prevailing Wages
March 17, 2026 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIn a case that I’m frankly surprised I don’t see more of, the 2nd District Court of Appeal of California examined an indemnity claim by a subcontractor against a general contractor and public entity who mistakenly believed that a construction project did not require the payment of prevailing wages.
The Nabors Case
In
Nabors Corporate Services, Inc. v. City of Long Beach, 108 Cal.App 540 (2025), subcontractor Nabors Corporate Services, Inc. sued general contractor Tidelands Oil Production Company and the City of Long Beach after it was found liable in a class action lawsuit for failing to pay prevailing wages to its employees. Nabors’ contract with Tidelands did not require the payment of prevailing wages and neither Tidelands nor the City believed that the project, which involved “oil well plug and abandonment” work, required the payment of prevailing wages.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Turnover Traps for Community Associations: Investigate First, Release Claims Later
April 14, 2026 —
Nicholas B. Vargo - Ball Janik LLPTurnover of a community association from developer control to owner control is a uniquely vulnerable moment. Developers are increasingly presenting Florida condominium and homeowners’ associations with “standard” settlement or release agreements at turnover, often being framed as routine steps to finalize the transition of control. In reality, these agreements can have sweeping consequences, including the release of construction-defect claims before the association has conducted any meaningful independent evaluation.
The developer has years of project knowledge and access to plans, subcontractors, and internal records. The newly elected board is just beginning to organize, obtain documents, and understand the property’s condition. Many defects, especially those involving roofing, waterproofing, windows, or structural components, are latent and not yet visible. Signing a release at this stage means the association is making a binding decision under conditions of uncertainty, without full information, to release all future potential claims.
Over the last few years, there has been a rise in reports of developers offering a packaged deal: they agree to complete certain repairs, often minor punch-list or cosmetic items, and to “forgive” an alleged financial deficit (often around $50,000) supposedly owed by the association from the developer-control period. In exchange, the association is asked to sign a broad release covering all claims, including known and unknown construction defects. To a new HOA board that received their community with limited operating and reserve funds, they are left with a difficult decision to either accept the developer’s offer or assess their owners to pay this alleged debt.
These agreements are occasionally presented through community management companies, which may describe them as “standard” or "routine.” Whether due to misunderstanding or influence from the developer, management companies can unintentionally reinforce the idea that signing is expected. Any recommendation provided to HOAs about whether to sign these releases could open community management to liability down the road. The best practice for both associations and community managers is to refer any agreements to be reviewed by general counsel for the association.
The following two case studies illustrate the real-world consequences:
Case Study One: A newly transitioned board relies on its management company to negotiate with the developer-builder to resolve irrigation issues, pond concerns, and signage deficiencies, along with forgiving an asserted financial shortfall. In exchange, the board signs a broad release covering all claims, including latent defects.
Within a year, several punch-list items remain incomplete, and more serious issues arise. When the association demands completion, the developer delays, prompting the association to seek advice on how to enforce the settlement agreement. The association hires counsel to hold the developer responsible for both the previously agreed-upon items and newly identified construction defects. However, when the association brings claims against the developer, the developer points to the release of all potential construction defects in the community. Thus, the only remaining remedy is limited to enforcement of the specific punch-list terms. The community, still relatively new, has no viable claims against the developer-builder for the construction defects. With warranties expired and the release, the association must fund repairs through special assessments, despite defects that would otherwise have been actionable.
Case Study Two: A community is presented with a similar agreement as above. The management company encourages execution, suggesting it is standard and even telling the board to “name your price.” The developer also pressures the newly elected board to sign.
Instead of signing, the board consults with their attorney. Counsel advises the board not to sign the release and recommends further investigation. Engineers are retained and identify early indicators of broader issues, including stucco cracking, water intrusion, and irrigation deficiencies. Based on this information, the association declines to sign the release. Subsequent evaluation reveals potentially significant construction-defect claims, allowing the community to pursue recovery that would have been lost under the proposed agreement.
These scenarios underscore a fundamental point: signing a release at turnover is not an administrative formality—it is a major legal decision. Board members act in a fiduciary capacity on behalf of their community, and their decisions can bind all current and future owners. At turnover, an association’s right is to investigate and pursue claims. Preserving that right until a full and independent evaluation is completed is not adversarial—it is responsible governance.
Accordingly, associations should retain independent evaluations of the property and consult qualified legal counsel before signing any “standard” agreements, especially ones involving a release of future claims.
Nicholas B. Vargo is a partner in Ball Janik LLP’s Construction Practice Group. He may be reached at nvargo@balljanik.com.
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...
Louisiana Enacts Important Tort Reform Legislation
May 12, 2026 —
Lee M. Peacocke & Benjamin Perkins - Lewis BrisboisThe Louisiana legislature enacted tort reform legislation in 2025 to address the increasing cost of insurance in Louisiana and to provide some predictability to the Louisiana legal system. While our colleagues, Jenny Michel and Jennifer Kretschmann, have provided an excellent and comprehensive analysis of the legislation in their article entitled “Louisiana State Legislature 2025 Regular Session: Tort Reform - Acts & Vetoed Insurance Bill,” which can be found
here, this article examines the anticipated impact of the tort reform legislation on personal injury trials in federal and state courts in Louisiana.
The most significant reform involves the institution of a modified defense of contributory negligence, which went into effect on January 1, 2026. Since 1996, Louisiana had operated as a pure comparative fault state; the liability of each party whose fault caused damages was to be allocated among the respective parties based upon their appropriate percentage of fault, regardless of the legal theory of liability asserted against each party. Thus, a plaintiff 55 percent at fault could recover 45 percent of their damages from the liable defendants. The 2025 Tort Reform Amendments now prohibit a plaintiff in a personal injury action from recovering any damages if they are found to be 51 percent or more at fault for their damages. The 55 percent at-fault party in the example above is now prohibited from recovering any damages from any party. Importantly, this new legislation now requires the trial court to instruct the jury that if they find a plaintiff to be more than 50 percent at fault, then the plaintiff will not recover any damages.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lee M. Peacocke, Lewis Brisbois and
Benjamin Perkins, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Peacocke may be contacted at Lee.Peacocke@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Perkins may be contacted at Benjamin.Perkins@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the full story...
UPDATED: No Easy Fix for Potomac River Sewage Spill, Now Estimated at $20M
April 08, 2026 —
Jim Parsons & Debra K. Rubin - Engineering News-RecordOne month after a collapsed pipeline north of Washington, D.C., spilled about 240 million gallons of raw sewage into the Potomac River and possibly between 300 and 400 million—which could be the largest wastewater spill in U.S. history—efforts are progressing to clear the damaged section and begin repairs despite weather and other impacts.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record and
Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com
Read the full story...
New Year’s Resolution: Engineering the “Tee-Up Day” for Complex Construction Mediations
February 17, 2026 —
Joël Bertet - The Dispute ResolverThe construction industry is defined by its commitment to "Critical Path" scheduling. From the moment a project breaks ground, every stakeholder—from the MEP sub to the owner’s rep—is focused on sequencing. We know that you cannot hang drywall before the rough-in is inspected, and you cannot pour a slab-on-grade until the vapor barrier is verified.
Yet, when these projects devolve into litigation, the legal community often abandons the logic of sequencing. We rush headlong into "The Mediation Day"—a high-stakes, expensive, one-day marathon where we expect dozens of parties, hundreds of insurance layers, and thousands of pages of expert reports to magically align into a settlement by 6:00 PM.
As we open our calendars for the new year, it is time for a professional resolution. We must stop treating mediation as a single-day event and start treating it as a managed, sequenced process. The centerpiece of this resolution is the “Tee-Up Day.”
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Joël Bertet, ResolveBertetMr. Bertet may be contacted at
joel@resolvebertet.com
Seventh Circuit, With an Assist From the Illinois Supreme Court, Finds That “Pollution Exclusion” Bars Coverage For Emissions Allowed Under Regulatory Permit
April 20, 2026 —
Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogIn Griffith Foods Int’l Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 24-1217 & 24-1223 (7th Cir. Mar. 13, 2026), the Seventh Circuit addressed the meaning and scope of a pollution exclusion in a standard-form commercial general liability insurance policy for underlying injuries caused by ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions. The insurance dispute arose out of underlying tort litigation involving bodily injury claims, including cancer, allegedly caused by emissions of ethylene oxide over a 35-year period from 1984 through 2019 by Griffith Foods International and later Sterigenics U.S. The pollution exclusion at issue generally barred coverage for “bodily injury” arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants.
Interpreting similar exclusions, the Illinois Supreme Court has previously held that the standard CGL pollution exclusion bars coverage for bodily injuries caused by traditional environmental pollution (essentially industrial emissions of pollutants), but not by more commonplace emissions (such as carbon monoxide from a residential furnace or excess chlorine in a backyard swimming pool). See American States Insurance Co. v. Koloms, 177 Ill. 2d 473 (Ill. 1997). In Griffith Foods, the District Court initially concluded that the pollution exclusion did not apply because the companies emitted EtO pursuant to a permit issued by the IEPA. The District Court reached this latter conclusion by applying Erie Insurance Exchange v. Imperial Marble Corp., 957 N.E.2d 1214 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011), an Illinois intermediate appellate court decision finding it ambiguous whether a CGL policy’s pollution exclusion barred coverage for emissions authorized by regulatory permit.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Taylor, Traub LiebermanMr. Taylor may be contacted at
jtaylor@tlsslaw.com
EPA, Maryland Sue DC Water Over Massive Potomac River Sewage Spill
May 14, 2026 —
Jim Parsons - Engineering News-RecordThe state of Maryland and the federal government have filed separate lawsuits against the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DC Water), both alleging that the agency’s failure to address longstanding deterioration in the Potomac Interceptor contributed to a
weeklong release of more than 240 million gallons of raw sewage into the Potomac River this past January.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jim Parsons, Engineering News-RecordENR may be contacted at
enr@enr.com
