Agent Not Liable for Loss Given Insured’s Vague Instructions for Coverage
April 08, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the insured’s agent because there was no breach of duty. Jon Van Order v. Hauk, et al., 2025 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2378 (Ill. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2025).
The insured began renovating a vacant home in October 2018. He met with agent Joseph Hauk and explained the property was vacant and would be going through renovations for the next several months. Hauk then procured a policy through Shelter Insurance Company insuring the vacant property against several specified perils. The policy provided coverage for water damage if “[t]he exterior of the building sustained a covered loss” and “that loss created an opening through which the water entered.” Damage caused by escaping water from within a plumbing system was excluded if: (1) the damage was caused by a “continuous or repeated leakage over a period of fourteen days or more” or (2) the insured premises had been vacant for 30 consecutive days immediately preceding the loss.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Maryland Enacts Climate-Cost Study Over Veto, New Jersey Advances Climate Superfund Proposal as Earlier State Laws Face Ongoing Court Challenges
January 21, 2026 —
Amanda G. Halter, Ashleigh Myers & Jillian Marullo - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogMaryland lawmakers have overridden the governor’s veto to enact legislation directing a statewide assessment of climate-related costs, while New Jersey lawmakers are preparing a January committee hearing for the State’s pending Climate Superfund Act. Together, these actions underscore continued state-level interest in both study-based and liability-focused climate-cost attribution frameworks, even as four separate lawsuits challenging state climate superfund statutes in New York and Vermont proceed in federal court.
Maryland Legislature Overrides Veto to Advance Climate-Cost Assessment
On December 16, the Maryland General Assembly voted to override Governor Wes Moore’s veto of S.B. 149 / H.B. 128, the “Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation – Total Assessed Cost of Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Study and Reports” Act. The vote followed the Governor’s announcement, just days earlier, that his administration would fully fund the study mandated by the bill, effectively reversing his prior veto.
Reprinted courtesy of
Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury,
Ashleigh Myers, Pillsbury and
Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury
Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com
Read the full story...
An “Agreement to Agree” Is Not a Binding Contract
January 13, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA driving issue in a recent dispute was whether a binding contract existed simply through the selection of a proposal in response to a solicitation. Or, was there nothing more than an “agreement to agree,” which does not create a binding contract. There is an important distinction between a binding contract an an “agreement to agree.”
A Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) issued a Request for Proposals otherwise referred to as an RFP. The RFP specifically stated that the CRA and proposer will be contractually bound only if and when a written contract is executed between the parties. A proposer was notified that it was selected as the winning proposer however a written contract was never executed because the proposer was subsequently disqualified. The proposer filed a lawsuit claiming it was wrongfully disqualified and prevailed. The trial court found it was entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to a contract that had been formed when the proposer’s proposal was originally accepted.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Yet Another Reason That Your Contract Matters
February 10, 2026 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsI have discussed on several occasions the fact that
construction contracts matter. The words in contracts matter and, in Virginia (as well as other states), most provisions, if not all
will be enforced to the letter. Recently, the Western District of Virginia federal court ruled in a way that reminded me of another reason for a well-drafted contract.
In
Rockingham Precast, Inc. v. American Infrastructure – Maryland, Inc. the Western District of Virginia Court considered a motion to transfer the venue to Maryland filed by American Infrastructure. The plaintiff, Rockingham Precast, a Virginia-based company sued in Virginia. American Infrastructure conceded that VA could be a proper forum for the lawsuit but argued that the form was much too inconvenient and costly for the party and non-party witnesses and that the cost made the forum an unfair place to try the case.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Builders Oppose Senate Housing Bill Over Investor Ban Provision
March 24, 2026 —
Katy O'Donnell - BloombergA powerful group representing the nation’s home builders is coming out against the most significant housing legislation in more than a decade over a provision negotiated by the White House that would restrict institutional investors from purchasing single-family homes.
The builders’ objection could imperil the bill’s chances of becoming law, even as leaders of both parties are desperate to show they are doing something to alleviate voters’
cost-of-living concerns. The Senate voted 90-8 to clear a procedural hurdle for the bill on Wednesday, with a vote on final passage expected early next week.
The inclusion of the investor ban in a broader housing bill was key to getting the White House on board,
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott, a Republican from South Carolina, told reporters Tuesday.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Katy O'Donnell, Bloomberg
Quick Note: If You Want to Recover Attorney’s Fees In a Contractual Dispute, Include a Prevailing Party Attorney’s Fees Provision
January 21, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIf you want the ability to recover attorney’s fees in the event of a contractual dispute, include a prevailing party attorney’s fees. Negotiate this point on the front end. Not doing so will hinder your ability to make the argument that you should be entitled to attorney’s fees due to a breach of the contract.
In a recent
case, the prevailing party relied on an indemnification provision to create the argument for attorney’s fees even though the action had NOTHING to do with indemnity. This was shot down on appeal as a party can’t use an indemnification provision to create that attorney’s fees argument UNLESS the provision is expressly clear on this point.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.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.
Construction of $3B Data Center in North Dakota Spurs Annexation Battle
January 13, 2026 —
Annemarie Mannion - Engineering News-RecordConstruction of a $3-billion data center on a 320-acre site in southeastern North Dakota has sparked an annexation dispute between the small city where it is being built and its much larger neighbor, Fargo.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Annemarie Mannion, Engineering News-RecordMs. Mannion may be contacted at
manniona@enr.com
