Water Reuse Emerges as a Critical Strategy for Data Center Development
June 22, 2026 —
Ashleigh Myers, Jillian Marullo & Jason Drogin Atwood - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogAs demand for data centers continues to accelerate, water availability is emerging as a critical factor in project development and long-term operations. Although power supply and transmission access have historically dominated siting discussions, increasing water constraints in many regions are placing greater focus on the substantial volumes of water required to support data center cooling systems. As we
covered previously, data centers are frequently located in areas already experiencing water stress and require substantial volumes of water to operate—roughly 228 billion gallons in 2023 in the United States alone—with water use projected to
increase by up to 170% by 2030.
Alternative cooling options, such as free-air cooling or mechanical chillers, can reduce direct water consumption but introduce their own tradeoffs. Free-air cooling is climate-dependent and often ineffective in hotter regions, while mechanical chillers increase energy demand, potentially shifting water consumption upstream through increased electricity generation.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ashleigh Myers, Pillsbury,
Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury and
Jason Drogin Atwood, Pillsbury
Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Atwood may be contacted at jason.atwood@pillsburylaw.com
Read the full story...
David Samani Joins BHBA Podcast on Mediation Best Practices
May 05, 2026 —
Lewis BrisboisLos Angeles Partner David Samani recently joined a Beverly Hills Bar Association (BHBA) podcast titled, “Mediation 360: Preparation from the Defense, Plaintiff, and Mediator Perspectives,” during which he shared his insights on various aspects of the mediation process. Mr. Samani, along with a plaintiff’s attorney and a mediator, presented their thoughts on topics including how to determine whether a case is appropriate for mediation, preparing to mediate a case, communicating with clients, and handling the mediation itself.
Mr. Samani explained that early communication with clients is critical so that attorneys may learn what a client’s objectives are and develop an assessment of the case. He described that “from an early stage,” attorneys should determine the cost of litigation and ensure that the client understands “what an aggressive defense might entail.” As the matter progresses, attorneys and clients should “continue the dialogue” regarding costs as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the case, “making sure the client is apprised of the various alternatives that exist.” In addition, Mr. Samani discussed factors to consider when choosing a mediator, noting, “All mediators have their own styles and backgrounds.” He explained that some cases may call for a mediator with specialized knowledge in a particular area such as bankruptcy or securities, while other mediations may benefit from a mediator who understands the realities of private practice.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
White and Williams LLP Secures $42.4 Million Award for Ventana DBS LLC in Philadelphia Marriott Construction Litigation
July 27, 2026 —
Craig O'Neill, Lindsay Liebman, Kristen Nichols Wright, Zachary Roth & William Taylor - White and WilliamsWhite and Williams LLP's Construction and Surety Practice attorneys secured a significant victory for client Ventana DBS LLC in a complex commercial construction dispute before the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Commerce Division. The trial team, led by Bill Taylor, retired Partner, and Craig O'Neill, Co-Chair of the Construction and Surety Practice Group, with support from Lindsay Liebman, Counsel, Zachary Roth, Partner, Kristen Nichols Wright, Associate, and Sue Ferrante, Legal Secretary, obtained a $42.4 million award on Ventana's claims for unpaid work, delay costs, CASPA penalties and interest, attorneys’ fees and other project-related costs arising from the construction of the Marriott W/Element Hotel Project in Philadelphia.
To achieve this result, the White and Williams team managed an extensive discovery period over the course of four-years of litigation, conducted over sixty depositions, participated in court-ordered mediation and arbitration proceedings, and successfully represented Ventana during a bifurcated trial that spanned over the course of a year.
Reprinted courtesy of
Craig O'Neill, White and Williams,
Lindsay Liebman, White and Williams,
Kristen Nichols Wright, White and Williams,
Zachary Roth, White and Williams and
William Taylor, White and Williams
Mr. O'Neill may be contacted at oneillc@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Liebman may be contacted at liebmanl@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Wright may be contacted at wrightk@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Roth may be contacted at rothz@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at taylorw@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the full story...
Idaho Contractor Registration: Lessons from the Ward v. Bishop Decision
April 20, 2026 —
Tara Martens Miller - Snell & WilmerThe Idaho Supreme Court’s recent decision in Ward v. Bishop Constr., Ltd. Liab. Co., No. 51118, 2025 Ida. LEXIS 143 (Dec. 31, 2025) offers valuable guidance for contractors and construction attorneys navigating the Idaho Contractor Registration Act (ICRA). The December 2025 ruling clarifies critical questions about when and how defendants may raise contractor registration defenses, the weight of pretrial stipulations, and the consequences of procedural missteps in construction litigation. This article examines the key takeaways from the decision and offers practical actions for consideration by those working in Idaho’s construction industry.
The Facts Behind the Dispute
The case arose from a long-standing working relationship between cousins Joel Ward and Ren Bishop dating to the 1990s. Ward performed general construction work for Bishop Construction, LLC, including building, plumbing, electrical, framing, roofing, and siding work on projects in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Bishop agreed to pay Ward $10 per hour, later increased to $12 per hour, plus one-way travel expenses. Between 2017 and 2019, Ward worked over 1,100 hours but was never paid, totaling $12,443.54 in claimed damages.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tara Martens Miller, Snell & WilmerMs. Miller may be contacted at
tmmiller@swlaw.com
'Drywall Isn't Light': Peter Lupo on Safety Management at Standard Drywall
May 26, 2026 —
Elaine Silver - Engineering News-RecordPeter Lupo has been safety director since 2019 at San Diego-based Standard Drywall Inc., a major wall and ceiling contractor. He draws on over two decades of safety experience across a wide range of commercial construction work, having previously served as safety director for general contractor T.B. Penick & Sons. He has also previously operated Peter Lupo Consulting, where he reviewed legal cases and provided expert testimony, and blogged on safety for ENR.com. Lupo recently spoke to ENR Correspondent Elaine Silver about the weight of drywall, heat hazard control, bilingual crews and how he supports safety creativity and learning on the Standard Drywall staff. The conversation has been edited.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Elaine Silver, Engineering News-RecordENR may be contacted at
enr@enr.com
Sometimes a General Damages Assessment is Enough. . .
July 06, 2026 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIt has been a while since I last posted here at
Construction Law Musings. Life, law practice, and “blogger’s block” have taken their toll on the posting schedule. Hopefully this will be one of several upcoming posts now that the litigation schedule has lightened a bit over the summer.
Today’s post is about damages. Specifically damage to a homeowner’s roof and her legal damages therefor. That last is of course a sentence that only a
construction attorney (or other litigator) could possibly craft and have it make sense. Now, on with the case. . .In
Hardesty Construction, Inc. v. Weedon, the facts are as follows:
Ms. Weedon had hail damage to the roof of her home. She hired Hardesty Construction to repair and replace the roof. After the first roof was installed and failed inspection, a second roof was installed. The issue was that the first roof had a warranty and the second roof, installed similarly to the first (and allegedly with the same construction issues according to Ms. Weedon’s expert), was not provided with the promised warranty. As one may expect, Weedon sued Hardesty and Hardesty Construction for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract. At trial, Weedon testified, without objection, that her home was worth $40,000 less because of Hardesty Construction’s work, which was based partially on quotes Weedon received to fix the roof. The Circuit Court granted Hardesty Construction’s motion to strike Weedon’s fraudulent inducement claim, but not her other claims. A jury awarded Weedon $30,253.30 on her breach of contract claim. Hardesty Construction appealed, arguing the Circuit Court erred in (a) allowing the jury to consider Weedon’s valuation testimony because it was not based on her personal knowledge and (b) denying its motion to strike based on insufficient evidence as to damages. Weedon assigned cross-error in the Circuit Court’s decision to grant the motion to strike her fraudulent inducement claim against Samual Hardesty.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Surety Liability Is Coextensive with Its Bond Principal
April 14, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent Miller act payment bond case, U.S. f/u/b/o Whitetail General Constructors v. Northcon, Inc., 2026 WL 46671 (D.Mont. 2026), contains a short noteworthy discussion as to a surety’s liability being coextensive with that of its bond principal. If you are bonded, or you are pursuing a bond, you need to appreciate this, which is why this is a noteworthy discussion:
A “surety’s liability on a Miller Act bond must be at least coextensive with the obligations imposed by the Act if the bond is to have its intended effect.” “Therefore, ‘the liability of a surety and its principal on a Miller Act payment bond is coextensive with the contractual liability of the principal only to the extent that it is consistent with the rights and obligations created under the Miller Act.’” In other words, “[w]here a subcontract’s terms are consistent with the Miller Act’s provisions, the surety’s liability on the Miller Act bond is coextensive with the contractual liability of its princip[al].”
“The liability of a surety under the Miller Act is controlled by federal law, rather than state contract law[.]” The court may, however, “look to state law when interpreting contractual provisions” in a Miller Act case.
“[T]he measure of recovery under the Miller Act is generally determined by the terms of the subcontract [or underlying contract].”
Northcon, supra, at *4-5 (internal citations omitted).
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Course of Construction Exclusions and the CGL Policy
July 20, 2026 —
Anna M. Perry, Rachel S. Kindseth & Nina Catanzaro - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.I. Course of Construction Exclusions
Course of Construction (“COC”) exclusions are found on General Liability and excess liability policies, typically a wrap-up or project specific policy, and generally exclude “all property damage occurring during the course of construction.” Insurers claim COC exclusions are not problematic because they are intended to prevent an overlap in coverage between the general liability policy and first-party property Builder’s Risk policy. However, because General Liability policies and Builder’s Risk policies provide coverage for different risks, COC exclusions can create a gap in coverage for owners and contractors. Therefore, any exclusion on a wrap-up or project specific policy that limits coverage for property damage liability should be scrutinized, and amendments sought when warranted and commercially achievable, for owners, developers and contractors because General Liability policies do not cover the same risk as that of a Builder’s Risk policy.
General liability policies provide defense and indemnity to the insured(s) for claims made by a third-party against the insured. Broad COC exclusions serve to preclude coverage for all property damage, not just property damage to the insured project. This includes property damage to property other than the insured project, e.g. an adjacent property. On the other hand, Builder’s Risk policies provide first-party property coverage for direct physical loss to the project during the course of construction. The Builder’s Risk policy will not provide coverage for property other than the project itself (e.g., adjacent property) and it will not provide a defense or indemnity in the event the owner of the damaged property brings a claim against a potentially at-fault party.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.,
Rachel S. Kindseth, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Nina Catanzaro, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Perry may be contacted at APerry@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Kindseth may be contacted at rkindseth@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Catanzaro may be contacted at NCatanzaro@sdvlaw.com
Read the full story...
