USDOT’s DBE Interim Final Rule: How It Affects Current and Out-to-Bid DOT and Airport Projects
June 15, 2026 —
Zachary F. Jacobson - The Construction SeytIn our April 16, 2026 post, we discussed the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Interim Final Rule (IFR) concerning Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) and Airport Concession Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (ACDBE) certification, specifically as it concerns transportation and airport projects in California.
This post addresses a broader question: What does the IFR mean for current and out-to-bid DOT projects operating under pre-existing DBE goals? The answer is that the IFR did more than change who qualifies as a DBE. It also changed how federally funded transportation and airport projects must be handled during the re-evaluation period. This affects active contracts, pending procurements, airport projects, design-build teams, and anyone relying on old assumptions about DBE goals and counting of DBE and ACDBE credit.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Zachary F. Jacobson, Seyfarth Shaw LLPMr. Jacobson may be contacted at
zjacobson@seyfarth.com
Ball Janik LLP Strengthens Miami Construction Defect Team with Litigator Nicolas Aixala
October 26, 2026 —
Ball Janik LLPMIAMI, FL, October 22, 2026 —
Ball Janik LLP has added Nicolas Aixala to its Construction Defect Practice Group as an associate in the firm's Miami office. Aixala brings experience in construction and civil litigation, along with a perspective many litigators don't have: a view from the public side of development, gained researching land use and zoning matters for the City of Miami.
"Construction disputes in South Florida rarely stay inside the four walls of a building. Zoning, permitting, and local regulation are often part of the story," said James C. Prichard, Managing Partner of Ball Janik LLP. "Nicolas has seen that landscape from the city's side of the table, and he pairs it with solid litigation training. That combination helps us quickly size up the development and regulatory issues our clients face. We're glad to have him on our Miami team."
Before joining Ball Janik, Aixala clerked at Miami-area law firms, supporting attorneys in construction litigation and a range of civil matters through legal research, motion practice, discovery, deposition preparation, and trial preparation. He also interned with the City of Miami, assisting with legal research and opinions on land use and zoning matters, including the City of Miami Zoning Code, known as Miami 21. That work gave him a close look at how local policy shapes development, and how it affects the neighborhoods and property owners who live with the results.
"A building is one of the biggest investments a property owner will ever make, and when construction goes wrong, they need advocates who understand both the courtroom and the local landscape," said Aixala. "Ball Janik handles complex construction litigation with a practical, client-focused approach. I'm excited to bring my litigation experience and local knowledge to this team and to the property owners it serves across South Florida."
Aixala earned his J.D. from the University of Miami School of Law, where he was a member of the Yvette Ostolaza Mock Trial Team and the Cuban American Bar Association. He received his B.S. in Business Administration from the University of Central Florida, with a minor in Legal Studies and a certificate in Entrepreneurship.
About Ball Janik LLP
Ball Janik LLP is a Florida-based law firm offering construction defect, construction law, insurance recovery, and commercial litigation counsel, to its local and national clients. The firm was founded in 1982 and has expanded its capabilities, professionals, and geographic footprint. What started as a small firm focused on real property, land use, and litigation (known then as Ball Janik & Novack) has grown to a team of 70-plus attorneys and paralegals in five offices in Florida, with centuries of combined experience and capabilities. The firm has been recognized by Chambers USA, including for its construction law capabilities in Florida, U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers®, The Best Lawyers in America©, Super Lawyers, and Corporate International. Read more at
www.balljanik.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
White and Williams LLP is Proud to Host the 20th Anniversary Virginia Barton Wallace Award and Reception
May 05, 2026 —
White and Williams LLPWhite and Williams LLP is proud to host the 20th Anniversary Virginia Barton Wallace (VBW) Award and Reception, which will celebrate this year’s honoree,
The Rendell Center for Civics & Civic Engagement. This award was created to celebrate the remarkable career of Virginia “Ginny” Barton Wallace, the first woman to be elected to partnership not only at White and Williams but also at any law firm in Philadelphia. The VBW Award is presented to a woman or organization that embodies the same qualities that Ginny possessed: leadership, drive, exemplary work ethic, overall excellence in her field, or an ability to inspire other women to succeed.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
Tracy Cowan Honored as “Icon” in Missouri Lawyers Media’s First-Ever “Illinois Legal Leaders” Awards
September 15, 2026 —
Lewis BrisboisSt. Louis Managing Partner Tracy Cowan has been named an “Icon” by Missouri Lawyers Media in its inaugural “Illinois Legal Leaders” awards program.
Mr. Cowan was among 14 people who earned “Icon” status in the awards program. This category honors “senior leaders with 30 years or more of legal practice” and is one of three groups recognized. The other two include “Up & Coming Lawyers,” for attorneys with 10 or fewer years in legal practice, and “Leaders in the Law,” which recognizes members of the bar who have significantly contributed to the practice of law in the state, the local legal community, and the broader community.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
Doctrine of Substantial Performance When It Comes to Payment
July 27, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent non-construction case touches upon the doctrine of substantial performance when it comes to payment. In this case, a club was to make two payments to secure a rapper’s attendance. The first payment was made. The second payment was made but was a few hundred dollars short of the agreed amount. The rapper did not show up. The club claimed it substantially performed its obligations. At first glance, the argument makes sense because the second payment fell only a few hundred dollars short. But that wasn’t the case when it comes to pre-commencement payment obligations:
Substantial performance applies only when the variance from the contract terms “is inadvertent or unintentional and unimportant so that the work actually performed is substantially what was called for in the contract.” However, when one party agrees to pay the other on or before a specific date, time is of the essence, and the payor is required to pay the payee on or before that date. “There is almost always no such thing as ‘substantial performance’ of payment between commercial parties when the duty is simply the general one to pay. Payment is either made in the amount and on the date due, or it is not.”
Big Gate Records, LLC v. Washington, 51 Fla.L.Weekly D1281a (Fla. 2nd DCA 2026) (internal citations omitted).
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Emerging Issues in Construction CGL Insurance Part 2: The Separation of Insureds and Additional Insured Interests
September 29, 2026 —
Eric M. Clarkson - SDV FenchurchMany coverage disputes hinge on first principles—the fundamentals of insurance —rather than the minutiae. Unfortunately, the basic anatomy of insurance policies can get lost sometimes when parties are laser-focused on a particular term or set of circumstances. This is true not just in disputes, but also when writing coverage. One of the fundamentals that is commonly misunderstood and overlooked—but which is absolutely critical to the intended operation of insurance coverage—is what is commonly known as the “separation of insureds.”
The “separation of insureds” is the concept that each “insured” under a policy are referred to and treated differently, and most of all that the distinctions matter. The concept is usually included as a condition in the policy. It embodies the requirement that the policy applies to each insured distinctly from how it applies to other insureds. The ISO Form CGL policies specifically state that they apply “[s]eparately to each insured against whom a claim is made or ‘suit’ is brought.” The separate and distinct treatment of insureds is more critical in construction operations than anywhere else. This distinction is essential to ensure coverage works as intended, especially when contracted operations are involved, because the policy must insure the subcontractor that purchased the policy, the general contractor who hired the subcontractor, and the owner that hired the general contractor. Even small modifications can easily frustrate the intent of the parties.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eric M. Clarkson, SDV FenchurchMr. Clarkson may be contacted at
eric.clarkson@sdvfenchurch.us
New Executive Order on AI Innovation and Security: Key Takeaways for the Construction Industry
June 15, 2026 —
Richard R. Volack & Denis Serkin - Peckar & Abramson, PCOn June 2, 2026, President Trump signed an Executive Order titled “Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security.” At its core, the Order is a cybersecurity and national-security measure rather than a broad regulation of how private companies develop or use AI. It directs federal agencies to harden government systems against AI-enabled cyber threats, establishes voluntary frameworks for collaboration between the federal government and the AI and critical-infrastructure sectors, and strengthens criminal enforcement against the malicious use of AI.
Notably, the Order expressly disclaims any intent to create a “mandatory governmental licensing, preclearance, or permitting” regime for the “development, publication, release, or distribution of new AI models.” Instead, the Executive Order seeks to “promote AI innovation and security” by working with the private sector to modernize government and private-sector information systems and harden them against external threats, protect intellectual property from exploitation or theft, and cultivate American AI capabilities.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard R. Volack, Peckar & Abramson, PC and
Denis Serkin, Peckar & Abramson, PC
Mr. Volack may be contacted at rvolack@pecklaw.com
Mr. Serkin may be contacted at dserkin@pecklaw.com
Read the full story...
