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
2026 Colorado Super Lawyers Recognizes 11 Snell & Wilmer Attorneys
May 05, 2026 —
Snell & WilmerDENVER – Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that eleven attorneys in its Denver office have been selected for inclusion in the 2026 Colorado Super Lawyers publication. Of those eleven, four were recognized as Rising Stars.
Super Lawyers is a listing of lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations, and peer evaluations. The final published list represents no more than 5 percent of the lawyers in the state.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Snell & Wilmer
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...
Court to General Contractor: Too Late to Reclaim $600K Sub Overpayment
March 03, 2026 —
Richard Korman - Engineering News-RecordMassachusetts contractors and their attorneys are once again testing the limits of the state's 15-year-old prompt-pay law, with concerned prime contractors asking an appeals court to overturn a lower court ruling that they believe gives subcontractors a powerful upper hand in payment disputes.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Richard Korman, Engineering News-RecordMr. Korman may be contacted at
kormanr@enr.com
That’s a Wrap! Pennsylvania Court Holds Arbitration Clause in Online Agreement Unenforceable
May 14, 2026 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Duffy v. Tatum, 2026 Pa. Super. LEXIS 112, 2026 PA Super 41, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Superior Court) considered whether an arbitration provision contained in the online Terms of Service on the defendant’s website were enforceable. The plaintiff, Daniel Duffy (Duffy), visited the website of defendant, Dolly, Inc. (Dolly), to purchase moving services. Duffy selected the number of movers, items to be moved and the type of vehicle needed. To complete the booking, the website required Duffy to checkmark a box labeled “By checking this box I accept the Dolly Terms of Service.” Duffy did not have to open the link or scroll to the bottom of the agreement before being able to click on the checkmark box. The Terms of Service included an arbitration provision requiring that any dispute related to the moving services to be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the American Arbitration Association. The Terms of Service did not include any statement that the user was waiving the right to a jury trial. The Superior Court found the internet Terms of Service unenforceable.
During the moving process, an accident occurred and injured Duffy. In May 2024, Duffy and his wife sued Dolly and other related entities alleging negligence and loss of consortium. Dolly filed preliminary objections alleging that the parties agreed to alternative dispute resolution. The lower court overruled the preliminary objections, finding that Dolly’s website did not provide reasonably obvious notice of its Terms of Service to Duffy and, as such, Duffy never agreed to waive his constructional right to a jury trial. Dolly filed an appeal to the Superior Court.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and Williams LLPMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
SDNY Ruling Highlights Privilege Risks in Client Use of Generative AI
March 03, 2026 —
Christopher J. Olsen, Freddy X. Muñoz & Gary M. Stein - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Artificial intelligence is quickly becoming a go‑to tool for aggregating and summarizing large volumes of data, formulating and testing arguments, and even sketching litigation strategies. But a recent ruling from the Southern District of New York serves as a stark warning: when clients turn to generative AI for legal strategy, they may be unknowingly turning privileged information over to a third party and then creating documents that may later be discoverable in litigation. In a closely watched bench decision, Judge Rakoff ruled that AI‑generated documents created by the target of a criminal investigation using Anthropic’s Claude were not privileged despite being generated with information learned from his attorneys to support his potential legal defense and then shared with his counsel. The decision highlights the unresolved and increasingly consequential intersection of AI, privilege, and discovery.
Facts
Bradley Heppner received a grand jury subpoena and hired attorneys at Quinn Emanuel to represent him. After learning he was a target of the investigation, but before he was arrested, he created 31 documents with Claude using information from his attorneys to outline a potential defense strategy. He was later arrested on charges of securities and wire fraud, and federal agents seized his electronic devices, which contained the 31 documents that had been provided to his attorneys. Mr. Heppner argued that the documents were created to prepare his potential defense strategy in anticipation of an indictment, but he conceded that he made the decision to prepare the reports on his own, i.e., not at the direction of counsel. He nevertheless claimed the documents were protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine; the government moved to overrule the objections.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher J. Olsen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.,
Freddy X. Muñoz, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Gary M. Stein, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Olsen may be contacted at colsen@pecklaw.com
Mr. Muñoz may be contacted at fmunoz@pecklaw.com
Mr. Stein may be contacted at gstein@pecklaw.com
Read the full story...
FERC’s New Order on Data Center Co-Location: What Utilities Need to Know
January 26, 2026 —
Stephen J. Humes - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogOn December 18, 2025, the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a pivotal order to PJM Interconnection, the nation’s largest regional wholesale power grid operator running the transmission system in the Mid-Atlantic region. The Order intends to help reshape how large loads—especially data centers—connect to the grid in the face of massive load growth from artificial intelligence (AI) hyperscalers.
At FERC’s monthly open meeting, the commissioners unanimously approved the Order, finding that PJM’s existing tariff does not adequately address the issue of co-locating large loads with data centers and electric generation. The Order was issued in FERC Docket Nos. EL24-49-000 et al., can be found at
this link.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen J. Humes, PillsburyMr. Humes may be contacted at
stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com
Court Rules Cook County Misspent $243M in Transportation Funds
March 10, 2026 —
Annemarie Mannion - Engineering News-RecordA Cook County Ill
FirstEnergy Fined $3.9M in Scandal Involving Nuke PlantsABC Announces Disaster Relief Efforts and Resources Following Hurricane MiltonNo Exception for Willful and Wanton Conduct: Colorado Supreme Court Clarifies the Economic Loss RuleHome Builders and Developers Beware: SC Supreme Court Beats Up Hybrid Arbitration Clauses MercilesslyKahana Feld Earns Recognition in Five Practice Areas in 2026 Best Law Firms® RankingsTo Settle or Not Settle: Factors to Weigh and Practical ConsiderationsKushner Company Files Suit Against Jersey City Over Delays to Planned Towers3M PFAS Water Settlement Could Reach $12.5BFirm Sued for Stopping Construction in Indiana Wants Case Tried in GermanyNew York Court Finds Insurers Cannot Recover Defense Costs Where No Duty to IndemnifyFlorida's Third DCA Reasserts the Teeth of Chapter 558 and the Future of Construction Defect LitigationWomen Make Their Mark on Construction LeadershipBad Faith in the First Party Insurance ContextTexas School District Accepts Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect CaseWhat Lies BeneathMississippi exclusions j(5) and j(6) “that particular part”Even Where Fraud and Contract Mix, Be Careful With Timing“Bound by the Bond”Fraud Allegations Stymie Additional Insured’s Request for a DefenseFollowing California Law, Federal Court Adopts Horizontal Allocation For Asbestos CoveragePaul Tetzloff Elected As Newmeyer & Dillion Managing PartnerIndemnitor Owes Indemnity Even Where Indemnitee is Actively Negligent, California Court Holds Contractor’s Burden When It Comes to DelayThe Colorado Supreme Court holds that loans made to a construction company are not subject to the Mechanic’s Lien Trust Fund StatuteMexico's Richest Man Carlos Slim to Rebuild Collapsed Subway LineCounsel Investigating Coverage Can be Sued for Invasion of PrivacyAmbiguity Kills in Construction ContractingNational Demand Increases for Apartments, Refuting Calls for Construction Defect Immunity in ColoradoQuick Note: COVID-19 Claim – Proving CausationBreach Of Duty of Good Faith And Fair Dealing Packaged With Contract Disputes Act ClaimLook Up And Look Out: Increased Antitrust Enforcement Of Horizontal No-Poach Agreements Signals Heightened Scrutiny Of Vertical Agreements May Be NextFloating Cities May Be One Answer to Rising Sea LevelsSchools Remain Top Priority in Carolinas as Cleanup From Storms ContinuesConstruction Spending Highest Since April 2009AI AEC Show: Augmenta Gives Designers SuperpowersConstruction Defects in Home a Breach of ContractThree Key Takeaways from Recent Hotel Website ADA LitigationLos Angeles Office Secures Summary Judgment for Electric Company Client in Asbestos LawsuitSettlement Payment May Preclude Finding of Policy Exhaustion: Scottsdale v. National UnionGrenfell Fire Probe Faults Construction Industry PracticesHOA Group Speaking Out Against Draft of Colorado’s Construction Defects BillSupreme Court Holds That Prevailing Wage Statute is ConstitutionalFire Protection You Can Trust Starts With the Right TestingCongratulations to Wilke Fleury’s 2025 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars!A Chicago Skyscraper Cements the Legacy of a Visionary Postmodern ArchitectA Discussion on Home AffordabilityConstruction Defect Claim Survives Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion Due to Lack of EvidenceJean Nouvel’s NYC ‘Vision Machine’ Sued Over Construction DefectsSnell & Wilmer Recognized With Top Honor in Ranking Arizona: Top Law Firms for 2026Federal District Court Addresses Anti-concurrent Cause Language in Property Policyme">New Jersey Supreme Court Hears Insurers’ Bid to Overturn a $400M Decision
School Board Settles Construction Defect SuitTrade Contract Revisions to Address COVID-19Hurricane Ian: Discussing Wind-Water DisputesConstructive Changes – A PrimerOH Supreme Court Rules Against General Contractor in Construction Defect Coverage Disputeails Under the Anti-SLAPP Statute
Haight Proudly Supports JDC's 11th Annual Bike-A-Thon Benefitting Pro Bono Legal ServicesToll Brothers Snags Home Builder of the Year Honors at HLSParty Cannot Skirt Out of the Very Fraud It PerpetratesWhile You Were Getting Worked Up Over Oil Prices, This Just Happened to Solar2011 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar – RecapDesign Immunity Does Not Shield Public Entity From Claim That it Failed to Warn of a Dangerous Condition Seeking Better Peer Reviews After the FIU Bridge CollapsePennsylvania Court Finds that Two Possible Causes Can Prove a Product Malfunction Theory of LiabilityBHA Sponsors 28th Annual Construction Law Conference in San Antonio, TXIs Construction Heading Off the Fiscal Cliff?Conflict of Interest Accusations may Spark Lawsuit Against City and City ManagerLos Angeles County Sues Utility Edison Over Deadly WildfireMelissa Pang Elected Vice President of APABA-PA Board of DirectorsHome Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Kept Climbing in JanuaryGRSM Attorneys Named Finalists in 2026 Women, Influence & Power in Law Awards
