Supreme Court Strikes Down IEEPA Tariffs: The Refund Process Will Be Messy
March 10, 2026 —
Brett W. Johnson, Derek Flint, T. Troy Galan & Thomas Williams - Snell & WilmerOn February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, and the consolidated case Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs unilaterally.1 The decision invalidates both the “reciprocal” tariffs and the drug-trafficking tariffs imposed under IEEPA.
For importers, the immediate question is whether, how, and when refunds can actually be obtained. On that issue, the U.S. Supreme Court provided no roadmap. To the contrary, the dissent warned that the United States “may be required to refund billions of dollars,” that the process is likely to be a “mess,” and that the majority opinion “says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Brett W. Johnson, Snell & Wilmer,
Derek Flint, Snell & Wilmer,
T. Troy Galan, Snell & Wilmer and
Thomas Williams, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Johnson may be contacted at bwjohnson@swlaw.com
Mr. Flint may be contacted at dflint@swlaw.com
Mr. Galan may be contacted at tgalan@swlaw.com
Mr. Williams may be contacted at twilliams@swlaw.com>
Read the full story...
Insured Successfully Moves to Dismiss Insurer’s Suit to Eliminate Duty to Defend
January 06, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court found that the insurer had a duty to defend and dismissed the insurer’s motion for summary judgment. Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn. v. I.C. Refrigeration Services Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221768 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2025).
Flory Construction, Inc. sued the project owner, Highbridge, asserting claims for (1) foreclosure on mechanics liens; (2) breach of contract; and other cliams. Flory agreed to furnish labor, materials and equipment for improvements to Highbridge’s properties. Flory alleges Highbridge failed to provide payment despite Flory completing “all requested contract work . . . except to the extent prevented by Highbridge.”
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.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.
How Mobile Tools Are Capturing Safety Data on Jobsites
April 08, 2026 —
Michael Bruns - Construction ExecutiveTraditionally, construction safety management is “reactive compliance”—reporting on an incident, filling out a form on paper or electronically, taking a picture and filing it away for compliance purposes. Safety management is shifting from reactive to proactive. Forward-thinking companies are using data and leading indicators to identify risks before incidents happen, not just document injuries after the fact.
Mobile tools have completely changed the way safety operations work on construction sites, enabling that transition to proactive safety management.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Bruns, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the full story...
ZEC 2.0: New York’s Zero Emissions Credit Program Gets an Extension and a Reboot
February 10, 2026 —
Stephen J. Humes & Jason Drogin Atwood - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIn a landmark move that could shape New York’s energy landscape for decades, state officials have taken steps to both preserve its existing nuclear power facilities and significantly expand its advanced nuclear capacity. These actions are part of a broader strategy to maintain grid reliability and meet both escalating energy demand and the state’s ambitious greenhouse gas reduction and zero carbon goals.
Renewing the Zero Emissions Credit Program
On January 22, 2026, the New York Public Services Commission (PSC) unanimously voted to extend and reboot the Zero Emissions Credit program (now called ZEC 2.0) to ensure that New York’s four upstate nuclear reactors maintain operations through 2049. The program, which began in 2016, is designed to provide revenue subsidies for legacy nuclear facilities that have been facing financial difficulties in New York’s competitive wholesale power markets. State officials have stated that the benefits of ensuring the continued operations of these reactors far outweigh the costs due to the lack of zero-emissions alternatives and the importance of ensuring grid reliability in the face of escalating energy demand from large loads like data centers.
Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen J. Humes, Pillsbury and
Jason Drogin Atwood, Pillsbury
Mr. Humes may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Atwood may be contacted at jason.atwood@pillsburylaw.com
Read the full story...
New York Moves to Tighten Third-Party Practice: Key Changes to CPLR 1007
March 31, 2026 —
Sophia L. Cahill - SheppardEffective April 18, 2026, the New York Legislature enacted the Avoiding Vexatious Overuse of Impleading to Delay (“AVOID”) Act, amending CPLR 1007—the statute that governs third-party practice. The amendment sharply limits when and how defendants can commence third-party actions, curbing the expansive discretion they previously enjoyed and targeting the late-stage impleaders that often upend case schedules.
What Changes
Before the AVOID Act was signed into law on December 19, 2025 (and subsequently modified by Chapter Amendments A9502 and S8809, signed by Governor Hochul on February 13, 2026[1]), CPLR 1007 gave defendants broad latitude to implead “any person who is or may be liable” for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim. CPLR 1007 specified no outside time limit for the initiation of a third-party claim; courts assessed only whether a defendant’s delay was undue—such as impleading months after the note of issue—and whether the plaintiff would suffer prejudice if the third-party action were not severed.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sophia L. Cahill, SheppardMs. Cahill may be contacted at
scahill@sheppard.com
Washington Court of Appeals Narrows Arbitrator Authority in Construction Dispute
November 21, 2025 —
Joshua Lane - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCIn a recent opinion, Division III of the Washington Court of Appeals clarified arbitrator limits in Reecer Creek Excavating v. SRI-Rochlin Construction JV,
[1] holding that consequential damage waivers are enforceable, fee-shifting depends on who “substantially prevails,” and arbitration awards can be vacated only in narrow circumstances.
Reecer Creek Excavating (“Reecer”) was subcontracted by SRI-Rochlin Construction JV (“SRI”) to perform excavation and paving work on a housing development in Ellensburg, Washington. When payment disputes arose, both parties filed breach-of-contract claims and later agreed to private arbitration. Their arbitration agreement included terms mandating that “the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs” and providing for an exception to the finality of the award where the arbitrator exceeded its authority.
After a multi-day arbitration, the arbitrator found both parties partly at fault - Reecer for incomplete and defective work, and SRI for withholding certain payments. The net award favored Reecer by about $55,000, with each side ordered to bear its own attorney’s fees.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Joshua Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Lane may be contacted at
joshua.lane@acslawyers.com
Reckless Disregard is. . . Well. . .Reckless
December 30, 2025 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsPunitive damages are hard to come by in construction law cases. This is because almost all construction contract cases are exactly that: contract cases. Between the
economic loss rule and the Virginia Courts’
almost (though not completely) impregnable wall between tort and contract, punitive damages may seem completely out of the picture. Depending on your perspective and position on the construction project food chain, this fact can be either frustrating or comforting.
However, like all seemingly immutable laws, this one has an exception according to the Chesapeake County, Virginia Circuit Court. In
Sawyer v. C.L. Pincus Jr. & Co. et. al. this Virginia court was faced with the following scenario. The defendants, a church and its contractor, were sued by Sawyer over a construction swale that was built partly on Sawyer’s property. According to the plaintiff, the only permission they gave to their neighbors at the church was to allow the church to build a drainage berm that did not encroach on their property. As stated above, the church and its contractor built a swale that encroached on the Sawyers’ property.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
