Beyond the Storm: How Non-Hurricane Catastrophes Expose Florida’s Construction Defect Blind Spot
August 11, 2026 —
Franchesco “Frank” Soto & Amanda L. Gonzalez - Ball JanikOn June 8, 2026, a magnitude 6.1 earthquake struck the Gulf near the coast of Cuba, the largest instrumentally recorded earthquake in the Gulf since seismic monitoring began in 1950. Buildings swayed, offices were evacuated, and many residents along the east coast of Florida, from Miami-Dade to Jacksonville, felt the ground shake. Although no tsunami followed and reported structural damage was limited, this event exposed a blind spot that Florida property owners, developers, and their counsel cannot afford to ignore: catastrophic stress on Florida buildings does not always come in the form of a named storm.
Florida property owners have grown accustomed to preparing for wind, storm surge, floods, and torrential rain. Far less attention is paid to earthquakes, sinkholes, tornadoes, hail, and non-tropical flooding, each of which can place unexpected stress on buildings not designed with those forces top of mind and can trigger deficiencies in buildings that were not otherwise known, expose design failures, and create an urgency for both insurance claims and subsequent litigation.
Non-Hurricane Triggers of Latent Defects
Seismic activity is the clearest example. Florida’s building code accounts for wind loads, not seismic forces, meaning even a moderate earthquake can reveal weaknesses in curtain wall systems, structural connections, or foundations that were already marginal. Sinkholes, driven by Florida’s karst limestone geology, remain a persistent threat, particularly in Central Florida, where subsurface voids can undermine foundations without warning. Non-tropical flooding, like the record rainfall that flooded South Florida in June 2024, can intrude through building envelopes and waterproofing systems that were never stress-tested for such volumes of water. Tornadoes and hail, while more localized, can cause roofing and envelope failures that mimic, mask, or trigger latent construction defects.
The Litigation and Coverage Disputes That Follow
When one of these events strikes a building already carrying undisclosed or unresolved construction defects, the resulting disputes become considerably more complex. Property owners and associations must move quickly to document existing conditions and distinguish damage caused by the event from pre-existing defective construction, the same causation issue that arises in the hurricane context under Chapter 558, but often without the benefit of established precedent or adjuster experience with these less common events.
Insurance coverage disputes frequently follow close behind. Carriers may dispute whether an earthquake, flood, or other peril is covered at all, particularly where policies contain earthquake or flood exclusions requiring separate endorsements, or anti-concurrent causation language that can bar coverage entirely when a covered peril combines with an uncovered one, such as pre-existing defective construction, to cause a loss. Sinkhole claims carry their own statutory framework under Florida law, requiring specific testing protocols and reporting before a claim is compensable. Developers and contractors, in turn, may find themselves defending Chapter 558 claims while simultaneously litigating with their own carriers over defense and indemnity obligations.
Practical Risk Mitigation Strategies
Property owners, associations, and developers can take several concrete steps to reduce their exposure. First, maintain thorough documentation, including engineering reports, maintenance logs, and photographs, well before any event occurs. This documentation is often the deciding factor in causation disputes. Second, engage structural engineers and consultants immediately following any seismic event, unusual flooding, or storm damage, regardless of whether a hurricane is involved. Prompt inspection preserves evidence and can help prevent inadvertent waiver of construction defect claims. Third, review insurance policies regularly with counsel or a broker to confirm earthquake, flood, and sinkhole coverage matches the property’s actual risk profile, rather than assuming a standard property policy responds to every peril. Fourth, avoid rushing to remediate before conditions are documented and/or before consulting counsel. Well-intentioned repairs can inadvertently compromise evidence needed to prove a defect claim.
The June earthquake was a reminder that Florida’s catastrophic risk profile extends beyond hurricane season. Property owners, associations, and developers who build readiness plans around all forms of catastrophic stress, not just named storms, will be far better positioned when the next unexpected event occurs.
Franchesco “Frank” Soto is a partner in
Ball Janik’s Construction Defect Practice Group in Miami. He may be reached at fsoto@balljanik.com.
Amanda L. Gonzalez is a litigation attorney in
Ball Janik’s Construction Defect Practice Group in Miami. She may be reached at agonzalez@balljanik.com.
WSHB Managing Partner Chad Dunigan Named Finalist for Jerrold S. Oliver "Ollie" Award of Excellence
May 12, 2026 —
Wood Smith Henning BermanChad Dunigan, Managing Partner of Wood Smith Henning & Berman's Orlando, Florida, office, has been selected as one of just four finalists for the prestigious Jerrold S. Oliver Award of Excellence, affectionately known in the construction defect community as the "Ollie" Award. This distinguished honor recognizes individuals who have made exceptional contributions and demonstrated unwavering dedication to advancing the field of construction defect law.
Named in honor of the late Judge Jerrold S. Oliver, a revered founder of alternative dispute resolution in construction defect claims and litigation, the Ollie award symbolizes loyalty, commitment, and trust within the industry. Judge Oliver's legacy as a staunch believer in the resolution process continues to inspire professionals who strive for excellence in the construction defect community.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wood Smith Henning Berman
Oracle's $16B Michigan Data Center Secures Financing as Power Contracts Face Appeals
June 08, 2026 —
Bryan Gottlieb - Engineering News-RecordA $16 billion hyperscale data center under construction outside Ann Arbor, Mich., has secured financing backed by Blackstone and other institutional investors, even as the project's power supply agreements now face a legal challenge before the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bryan Gottlieb, Engineering News-RecordMr. Gottlieb may be contacted at
gottliebb@enr.com
LA Scores Major Victory in a High-Exposure Premises Liability Action
July 06, 2026 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPOur firm is proud to announce a decisive defense victory obtained by Partner
Daniel Crespo and Associate
Lauren Landau for our client in a high-exposure premises liability action arising from a 2022 incident at an active school construction site in Perris, California. On March 10, 2026, the Riverside County Superior Court granted Summary Judgment in full for our client, dismissing all claims brought by Plaintiff, who alleged she tripped and fell over a curb while picking up her daughter from school and sustained ankle and wrist injuries as a result.
Through meticulous preparation and the strategic use of construction plans, contractual documents, and onsite surveillance video evidence, our team demonstrated that our client had no ownership, possession, or control over the portion of the existing sidewalk where the incident occurred, with construction plans unambiguously designating the area as pre-existing concrete outside our client’s scope of work, and the Construction Services Agreement expressly reserving control over all existing site improvements to the school district.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Settlement Agreements and Contracts Require a Meeting of the Minds
July 20, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA settlement agreement does not need to be executed for it to be enforceable as long as there was a MEETING OF THE MINDS. The same rings true for any contract regardless of whether the contract is signed – THERE NEEDS TO BE A MEETING OF THE MINDS.
In a recent case dealing with the settlement agreement on a construction lien, the essential settlement terms (money and mutual release) were memorialized in an e-mail exchange between the parties (owner and subcontractor). The settlement required the owner to pay the principal amount plus some attorney’s fees and then a mutual general release would be prepared. In response to the confirmatory email, the owner sent a check, which the subcontractor deposited, but the owner refused to sign the release signed and sent by the subcontractor. The owner further claimed it doesn’t need to pay the attorney’s fees because the lien amount was paid in full. The subcontractor sued arguing the owner breached the terms of the settlement. The appellate court agreed.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Could Your Project-Level AI Prompt Become the Other Side’s Smoking Gun?
October 20, 2026 —
Ryan Glass - ConsensusDocsA dispute is brewing on the project. Wanting a quick assessment, the project manager opens ChatGPT, Claude, or another generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) platform. The project manager types the dispute background into the prompt, including concerns, explanations, and a frank discussion of what may have gone wrong on the contractor-side. The AI response identifies potential weaknesses in the contractor’s position, including possible failures to meet contractual obligations. Unhappy with the answer, the project manager starts a new chat, revises the prompt, and tries again. If the dispute escalates to arbitration or litigation, can the owner force the contractor to provide these prompts and the resulting responses?
Frustratingly, the answer is: it depends. Courts have reached different conclusions. For now, the safest course is to involve your counsel before using AI to evaluate a demand letter, default notice, or threatened lawsuit, or before using AI to draft dispute-related emails, claim letters, or other communications that contain project-specific facts. Otherwise, what feels like a private conversation may later become key evidence for the opposing party.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ryan Glass, Jones Walker LLCMr. Glass may be contacted at
rglass@joneswalker.com
Nevada’s Mandatory Nonbinding Arbitration Law for Civil Cases is Going Through Changes
May 14, 2026 —
Brandon Wright & Manuel Gurule - Lewis BrisboisNevada currently operates an expedited litigation program designed to resolve civil disputes with a value up to $50,000 without incurring the “usual” expense of litigating these disputes. Over time, however, the number of civil cases that have been “exempted” from this program based on the claimed damages exceeding $50,000 has grown dramatically. In response, the Nevada Legislature recently enacted a number of rule changes designed to streamline Nevada’s arbitration process and include more cases. Among these changes are increasing the arbitration “cap” from $50,000 to $100,000.
By way of background, the Nevada’s Court Annexed Arbitration program is a mandatory, non-binding program for civil cases in judicial districts that have county populations of 100,000 or more [1]. Nevada’s Court Annexed Arbitration was born out of NRS 38.250, which was enacted in 1991 and went into effect in the summer of 1992. The newly enacted NRS 38.250 was regarded as a way to address the problem of increased court caseloads while promoting judicial economy and efficiency in civil cases having a probable jury award of less than $25,000 [2]. Initially, cases that were automatically exempt from the program included class actions, medical malpractice disputes, divorce proceedings, and other domestic relations matters [3].
Reprinted courtesy of
Brandon Wright, Lewis Brisbois and
Manuel Gurule, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Wright may be contacted at Brandon.Wright@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Gurule may be contacted at Manuel.Gurule@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the full story...
Arizona Court Enters $323 Million Judgment Against ZOM Living Following Unanimous Jury Verdict
May 26, 2026 —
Gray Development GroupPHOENIX, May 19, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- A Maricopa County court has entered a $323 million compensatory damages judgment in favor of Gray Development Group against ZOM Holding Inc., doing business as ZOM Living, following a 12-day trial, a unanimous jury verdict and post-trial proceedings related to a proposed business transaction.
The jury found ZOM liable on claims of breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing stemming from a proposed joint venture tied to a planned pipeline of luxury multifamily and commercial projects in Phoenix and Scottsdale.
The lawsuit centered on a 13-project, $1.4 billion development pipeline originated and planned by Gray Development Group over more than a decade. In 2019, Gray invited Florida-based ZOM to participate in a joint venture involving the completion of five projects, which would have marked ZOM's entry into the Arizona market.
According to court findings presented at trial, the companies entered into a mutual confidentiality and non-circumvention agreement before Gray shared extensive sensitive and proprietary information related to the projects, including planning, market analysis, costs, financial data, local business relationships and operational strategies developed by Gray over decades in Arizona.
Evidence presented during trial showed that over a 10-month period while under contract, ZOM made hundreds of requests for confidential project and market information before circumventing Gray and pursuing the projects independently, ultimately displacing Gray from projects it spent years planning and developing.
ZOM Living, headquartered in Orlando, develops multifamily and senior housing communities across the United States and operates regional offices in Boston, Dallas, Fort Lauderdale, Nashville, Phoenix, and Raleigh. ZOM is owned by Timeless Investments, the Amsterdam-based family office of Dutch businessman Hans van Veggel, which acquired the company in 1997.
About Gray Development Group
Gray Development Group was founded by architect Bruce Gray in 1991. The Phoenix-based company was the top-ranked multifamily developer in Arizona for more than a decade. The company designed and developed more than 15,000 apartment and condominium units throughout metropolitan Phoenix. Two Gray-designed developments — a Tempe midrise and a San Diego high-rise — received National Apartment Community of the Year awards.
