Consider The Limited Warranty from Your Homebuilder
July 06, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen purchasing a home from a homebuilder, there is an important consideration when it comes to the limited warranty you receive around the time you close on the home. That limited warranty likely includes an arbitration provision requiring you to arbitrate your disputes, such as construction defect claims, against the homebuilder. That arbitration provision will most likely include all claims, including statutory claims (such as a statutory violation of a building code claim), requiring you to arbitrate, as opposed to litigate, your disputes against the homebuilder. This is an important consideration. If the arbitration provision does not allow you to arbitrate all of your claims, and eliminates your rights to legitimate statutory claims, the arbitration provision could be unenforceable.
By way of example, in a residential construction defect dispute, Anderson v. Taylor Morrison of Florida, Inc., 223 So.3d 1088 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017), the appeal turned on whether the arbitration provision in the homebuilder’s limited warranty was valid. The homeowners took possession of their home in 2009. In 2015, the homeowners served a Florida Statutes Chapter 558 notice of construction defects that included a statutory violation of a building code claim under Florida Statute §553.84. The limited warranty included an arbitration provision that specified it was the “exclusive remedy” for all disputes arising out of or related to the warranty or issues with the home and property. When read together with the warranty’s disclaimer that precluded claims not covered by the warranty “whether in contract, tort, or otherwise,” the statutory building code violation claim could not be remedied through arbitration because it fell outside the warranty’s coverage.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Congratulations to Las Vegas Partner Jeffrey Saab and Senior Associate Shanna Carter on Winning Another Motion for Summary Judgment!
March 17, 2026 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPPartner
Jeffrey Saab and Senior Associate
Shanna Carter’s client owned a condo, which he rented out. The tenant allegedly assaulted Plaintiff across the street from the condo, resulting in personal injury, including nerve damage. Shanna did the research and writing, and Jeff argued the Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court ruled, in pertinent part, that the subject assault off property was not foreseeable, resulting in a complete dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
New York Amends Prompt Payment Act: Retainage Above 5% in Private Construction Contracts Now Void
February 10, 2026 —
Mark A. Snyder, Levi W. Barrett, Patrick T. Murray & Skyler L. Santomartino - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.In 2023 New York overhauled its Prompt Payment Act. The
2023 amendments, largely aimed at restricting the amount of retainage that can be withheld on private projects, were unclear about whether parties could contract around the statute, as they can with other provisions of the statute. The State Legislature recently clarified that issue.
On December 19, 2025, New York enacted a new law, tightening the State’s Prompt Payment Act retainage laws by amending the Prompt Payment Act under General Business Law § 757. Under § 757, the new law renders void any contract provision in private construction contracts that requires retainage in excess of 5% of the total contract sum, meaning owners cannot hold more than 5% from their prime contractors and prime contractors cannot hold more than 5% from their subcontractors.
Reprinted courtesy of
Mark A. Snyder, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.,
Levi W. Barrett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.,
Patrick T. Murray, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Skyler L. Santomartino, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Snyder may be contacted at msnyder@pecklaw.com
Mr. Barrett may be contacted at lbarrett@pecklaw.com
Mr. Murray may be contacted at pmurray@pecklaw.com
Mr. Santomartino may be contacted at ssantomartino@pecklaw.com
Read the full story...
Appraisal Award Upheld Despite Insurer’s Contention that Causation was Considered
February 23, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court in Tennessee granted the insured’s motion for summary judgment finding the appraisal award was properly determined despite the insurer’s argument that the appraisal panel considered causation of the loss. Nashville Communications, Inc. v. Auto-Owners (Mutual) Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223455 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 13, 2025)
A windstorm struck and damaged the building owned and insured by Nashville Communications (NashComm). A claim was submitted to the insurer, Auto-Owners, for damage to the roof and interior water leakage. Auto-Owners acknowledged that there was some amount of wind damage to the building from the wind event.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Jurisdiction Over Foreign Manufacturers in Construction Litigation
May 14, 2026 —
Timothy J. Repass & Miki J. Saito - Wood Smith Henning BermanA recent decision from the Washington Court of Appeals provides important guidance on personal jurisdiction over foreign product manufacturers in construction and infrastructure litigation. In King County v. Aquatherm GmbH, No. 85572-7-I (Wash.Ct. App.Div.I)(unpublished), the court addressed whether a German manufacturer could be sued in Washington for alleged defects in piping used in major public infrastructure projects. The ruling offers a detailed, fact-driven roadmap for how Washington courts evaluate jurisdiction over foreign manufacturers operating through layered distribution networks. It also reflects a broader trend toward focusing on real-world commercial conduct rather than formal corporate structure.
Background of the Case
King County sued after widespread failures in polypropylene piping installed at the King County Correctional Facility. The pipe, manufactured by Aquatherm GmbH in Germany, was marketed, distributed, and installed through a network of U.S.-based entities. Following a six-week trial, the jury returned a verdict exceeding $18 million on claims under the Washington Product Liability Act and Consumer Protection Act. Aquatherm challenged, among other things, the trial court's exercise of personal jurisdiction.
Reprinted courtesy of
Timothy J. Repass, Wood Smith Henning Berman and
Miki J. Saito, Wood Smith Henning Berman
Mr. Repass may be contacted at trepass@wshblaw.com
Ms. Saito may be contacted at msaito@wshblaw.com
Read the full story...
New Report Outlines Roadmap for Construction Jobsites to Cut Carbon Emissions by 2040
April 20, 2026 —
PCL ConstructionDenver, Colo., April 16, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- A new industry report outlines five practical steps that, when implemented together, could reduce construction jobsite emissions by up to 75% without compromising cost, schedule or performance. Grounded in real operational data from 617 construction projects across the U.S. and Canada, Growing and Greening Canadian Construction represents the most comprehensive sector-wide analysis of jobsite emissions conducted to date.
The report was developed through a collaboration among leading general contractors, including
PCL Construction, in partnership with the Transition Accelerator, an organization that drives projects, partnerships, and strategies to promote economic competitiveness in a carbon‑neutral world. The report focuses specifically on emissions from construction jobsite activities and reflects a shared commitment to advancing practical, scalable solutions for the industry.
About PCL Construction
PCL is a group of independent construction companies that operates throughout the United States, Canada, the Caribbean and Australia. As one of the largest contracting organizations in North America, PCL completes more than $9.9 billion USD in work annually, building projects that shape communities. The company’s 100% employee ownership model fuels a culture of commitment for clients in the buildings, civil infrastructure, heavy industrial and solar markets. With a strategic presence in more than 30 major centers, PCL’s leadership teams consistently drive innovation and set new benchmarks for excellence, bringing unparalleled skill to every project. Watch us build at PCL.com.
About the Transition Accelerator
The Transition Accelerator works with 300+ partner organizations across Canada to build out pathways to a prosperous low-carbon economy and avoid costly dead-ends along the way. We help governments and industry harness the global shift towards clean growth to secure permanent jobs, abundant energy, and strong regional economies across the country. By connecting systems-level thinking with real-world analysis, we’re enabling a more affordable, competitive, and resilient future.
Read the full story...
Engineering Seals Versus Contracts ‘Under Seal’ (Two Very Different Things)
May 05, 2026 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North CarolinaRecently, I was asked by a reader to explain the difference between a document that is
‘sealed’ by an engineer (or architect) and one that is
signed ‘under seal’. This question prompted this post, as others may also be wondering about the distinction. [Hi Ed! Thanks for your question]
Professionals have ‘seals’ that show that they are registered (Engineers) or licensed (Architects). As most of you likely know, your professional seal is something that is hard won and which is used when—and only when—your plans were made by you or someone under your direct supervisory control. Your signature represents that you were in
responsible control over the documents, and that they have met the required professional standard of care. (21 NC Admin Code 2-0206 (a)(11)).
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLCMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
IRMI Expert Commentary: NY Highest Court Confronts Downstream Risk Transfer for Subcontractor Bodily Injury Claims
March 17, 2026 —
Gregory D. Podolak & Alexander G. Hopkins - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Originally published on IRMI.com, copyright 2026 International Risk Management Institute, Inc.
Subcontractor employee bodily injury claims (so-called action over claims) are a staple of construction risk management in the Empire State—so much so that the phrase “labor law” instinctively invites a shudder among the most experienced general contractors. The savvy among them intensely monitor case law developments and the evolution of the insurance market to ensure a cutting-edge, meticulously developed downstream risk transfer plan. And when guidance arrives from an appellate-level court, it’s a moment to take note.
This is one of those moments.
In late 2025, New York’s highest court—the NY Court of Appeals—had the rare opportunity to examine an all-too-routine bodily injury fact pattern and took the opportunity to closely examine the scope of contractual indemnity and its interplay with additional insured coverage in Dibrino v. Rockefeller Center N., Inc., 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 07077, 2025 WL 3670593 (Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2025).
Reprinted courtesy of
Gregory D. Podolak, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Alexander G. Hopkins, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Podolak may be contacted at GPodolak@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Hopkins may be contacted at AHopkins@sdvlaw.com
Read the full story...
