A Permitting Base Checklist for Data Centers and Power Plants
June 02, 2026 —
Michael S. McDonough, Stephen J. Humes & Stacey C. Wright - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogThere is a lot of talk these days about “license to operate” for data centers, meaning management of the relationships with stakeholders and broader communities concerning both the benefits and adverse consequences of locating a facility in a particular locale. Here, we are speaking of “license to operate” more literally—namely, the legal and regulatory permitting and approval requirements for a privately owned data center whether by itself or colocated with a power generating plant.
Our Base Checklist includes generally and potentially applicable permitting requirements for development and operation, using California as an example. (Taking legal authority Frank Sinatra out of context, “If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere.”) The actual requirements for a given facility would depend, in part, on local law, including planning and zoning laws and plans, and the environment of the site. Just as examples, additional permitting and mitigation requirements might apply if sensitive receptors are located nearby (e.g., noise mitigation for residential dwellings), if sensitive and protected biological resources (e.g., jurisdictional waters and/or protected species) would be impacted, or if the present or former land uses require additional measures (e.g., hazardous materials remediation, mitigation for conversion of prime farmland, or protection of cultural resources). The scope of permit requirements would ultimately be determined by the applicable regulatory agencies and by the lead and responsible agencies under the applicable state environmental land use regime—in our reference case here, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. McDonough, Pillsbury,
Stephen J. Humes, Pillsbury and
Stacey C. Wright, Pillsbury
Mr. McDonough may be contacted at michael.mcdonough@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Humes may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Wright may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com
Read the full story...
Quick Note: Include Key Time Related Facts in Contract to Avoid an Ambiguity
February 17, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen drafting or negotiating a contract, it is important to consider key time-related facts. In other words, if there are important provisions dealing with time, you don’t want to leave them undefined as that can create an ambiguity in the contract.
In a recent case dealing with an investment contract, discussed
here, that’s exactly what happened. The contract allowed investors to exercise an option to return their equity in exchange for a refund of their investment but the contract didn’t contain an expiration date on when the option must be exercised. The investors tried to exercise the option two years later leading to a dispute as to whether that was a “reasonable time.” This is because the lack of clarity regarding this temporal fact led to a latent ambiguity meaning it was a question of fact as to whether the investors exercising the option two years later was reasonable under the circumstances.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Travelers Injury Impact Report Highlights Longer Recovery Times Amid Declining Injury Rates
May 05, 2026 —
The Travelers Companies, Inc.HARTFORD, Conn.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The Travelers Companies, Inc. (NYSE: TRV) today released its 2026 Injury Impact Report, an analysis of more than 1.2 million workers compensation claims received by the company from 2021 through 2025. The report finds that even as workplace injury rates decline, the injuries that do occur are growing more complex and taking longer to heal – a trend driven by an aging workforce and the disproportionate vulnerability of first-year employees.
“The decrease in workplace injuries is a positive story, yet injured workers are still missing an average of 80 workdays,” said Claude Howard, Vice President of Workers Compensation Claim at Travelers. “This report is a reminder that progress doesn’t mean the risk environment requires any less attention, and an employer’s commitment to safety must keep pace with an ever-evolving workforce and injury landscape.”
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Travelers Companies, Inc.
Your AEC Firm Has a Memory Problem. Here Is How to Fix It
June 01, 2026 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessAEC companies trying to operationalize AI often find they lack the data foundation on which to build. There may be an abundance of data hidden in documents, but you can’t reliably use it for AI.
The lack of data quality was a key topic discussed at the AI in AEC 2026 conference. During the event, I met many experts working to solve this problem, including
Pavlina Nikolova,
Egnyte‘s EMEA AEC Practice Lead. The chat and her presentation highlighted the challenges and ways to overcome them.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
Louisiana Legislature Enacts Act 932 – Significant Changes to Insurer Bad-Faith Exposure for Failure to Settle
July 13, 2026 —
Tabitha R. Durbin & Jennifer E. Michel - Lewis BrisboisThe Louisiana Legislature has enacted Act 932 (formerly House Bill 1162), which became law this week without the Governor's signature pursuant to the Louisiana Constitution, after expiration of the applicable constitutional review period. Act 932 makes several important amendments to Louisiana's insurer bad-faith statute and appears intended, at least in part, to address issues arising from the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision in Kelly v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 169 So.3d 328 (La. 2015). The Act also makes changes regarding claim payments involving licensed contractors. The Act takes effect on August 1, 2026.
Key Takeaways
Act 932:
- Limits certain bad-faith causes of action (bad faith failure to settle) involving personal injury and bodily injury claims where good-faith disputes exist or where an insurer has not been afforded sufficient opportunity to respond to a settlement demand.
- Requires insurers and adjusters to verify a contractor's Louisiana license status before issuing claim payments when a contractor is named as a payee on a check for repair or restoration of immovable property.
- Creates a statutory safe harbor protecting insurers from bad-faith penalties and attorney fees when payment delays result from an inability to verify a contractor's license, provided specified documentation and notice requirements are met.
Reprinted courtesy of
Tabitha R. Durbin, Lewis Brisbois and
Jennifer E. Michel, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Durbin may be contacted at Tabitha.Durbin@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Michel may be contacted at Jenny.Michel@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the full story...
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.
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
Elliott Backed Venture Sues Lloyds Over Avant Cladding, Times Reports
February 17, 2026 —
Eamon Farhat - BloombergElliott Investment Management and British housing tycoon Jeff Fairburn, joint-venture partners in UK homebuilder
Avant Homes Group, are suing
Lloyds Banking Group Plc over who should pay to fix properties that fail to meet post-Grenfell fire-safety standards, the Times reported.
Avant, which faces remediation costs of at least £107 million ($146 million) for potentially dangerous cladding, argues that Lloyds should shoulder part of the bill because most of the developments were built before 2014, when the homebuilder was under the bank’s ownership, the Times reported.
Cladding has become a contentious issue in the UK following the Grenfell Tower fire in June 2017, in which dozens died after flames spread rapidly through flammable exterior cladding on the West London high-rise, laying bare deep failures in Britain’s building safety regulations.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eamon Farhat, Bloomberg
