Congratulations to Reno Partner Karen Baytosh for Securing a Complete Dismissal via a Motion for Summary Judgment
July 13, 2026 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPBWB&O is proud to announce that Reno Partner Karen Baytosh received a significant victory on behalf of the firm’s Developer Client in a high-exposure personal injury matter.
Plaintiff, a teenager, was struck by an intoxicated driver while walking her dog at night, sustaining catastrophic injuries requiring 24-hour critical care for the remainder of her life. Plaintiff’s Guardian brought suit against the drunk driver and her husband, the City, and BWB&O’s Developer Clients, alleging that the City and Developers failed to improve street lighting and install a sidewalk that would have prevented the accident.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
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.
Drilling Rig Topples at Citadel Miami Headquarters Site, Injuring Four
October 12, 2026 —
Bryan Gottlieb - Engineering News-RecordAn 85-ft drilling rig working at the site of Citadel's planned global headquarters in Miami toppled into Brickell Bay Drive Sept. 14, striking vehicles and a construction container, sending three workers and a motorist to hospitals.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bryan Gottlieb, Engineering News-RecordMr. Gottlieb may be contacted at
gottliebb@enr.com
Achieving Sustainability Through Design Build Delivery: Part II – A Framework for Managing Sustainability Objectives on Private Commercial Construction
October 06, 2026 —
Jennifer Harris, Tiffany Harrod & Joshua Pruett - ConsensusDocsPart I of this series traced the history and development of sustainability in construction and explained why design-build (“DB”) contracting is particularly well suited to achieve sustainability objectives. But selecting DB contracting does not by itself ensure a sustainable outcome. The parties must define their sustainability objectives with precision, establish measurable performance criteria and identify who will measure compliance with the criteria, and also draft contract terms that clearly and fairly allocate the associated responsibilities and risks. Otherwise, the completed project may fall short of its sustainability objectives and expose the parties to claims, disputes, and litigation. Part II offers a non-exhaustive list of practical guidance for addressing these issues and reducing those risks.
This article references the ConsensusDocs 310 Green Building Addendum, in conjunction with an agreement between the Owner and the Design-Builder (e.g., ConsensusDocs 415)
[1],
[2] and AIA Document E204–2017 Sustainable Projects Exhibit,
[3] together with AIA A141,
[4] as its contractual baseline. The five-part framework that follows is a roadmap for allocating sustainability risk between private owners and design-builders: define the requirements, identify hidden performance guarantees, map out the sustainable objective, address third-party certification risk, and track performance against agreed benchmarks.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jennifer Harris, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.,
Tiffany Harrod, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Joshua Pruett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Ms. Harris may be contacted at jharris@pecklaw.com
Ms. Harrod may be contacted at tharrod@pecklaw.com
Mr. Pruett may be contacted at jpruett@pecklaw.com
Read the full story...
Wilke Fleury is proud to congratulate attorneys recognized in the 2027 editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America.
September 15, 2026 —
Wilke FleuryThe Best Lawyers in America®:
Dan Egan,
Daniel Foster,
David Frenznick, and
George Guthrie.
Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America:
Islam M. Ahmad,
Kathryne Baldwin,
Melissa Eaton,
Jason Eldred, and
Mustafa Karim.
Congratulations to this outstanding group!
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wilke Fleury
Connecticut Expands Construction Wage-Theft Liability and Prevailing Wage Recordkeeping Requirements
June 29, 2026 —
Anand Gupta & Guest Contributor - Construction Law ZoneThis post was co-authored by Labor + Employment group lawyer Christopher Costain, Hayden Eckblom (Summer Intern), and Pasqualina Fox-Mina (Summer Associate). Hayden and Pasqualina are not admitted to practice law.
On May 11, 2026, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed into law Public Act 26-12, a wide-ranging bill centered around employee rights. Our colleagues in Robinson+Cole’s Labor, Employment, Benefits + Immigration group recently published a
legal update summarizing the key components of Public Act 26-12. Here, we focus on the Wage Theft and Prevailing Wage concepts in the bill that directly relate to the construction industry.
Wage Theft
With exceptions for public works and small residential projects, general contractors will be jointly and severally liable for any unpaid wages owed to an employee of a subcontractor of any tier on private construction projects, beginning with contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2027. As we know, there is a separate regime for public works projects involving payment bonds.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anand Gupta, Robinson & Cole LLPMr. Gupta may be contacted at
agupta@rc.com
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...
Nationwide Preliminary Injunction Ordering Department of Defense to Resume Review of Wind Energy Projects
September 21, 2026 —
Victor J. Roehm III, Christopher P. Colyer & Sara M. Ajeti - Snell & WilmerOn August 6, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon granted a preliminary injunction in Renewable Northwest v. Hegseth, Case No. 3:26-cv-01092-IM, ordering the Department of Defense (DoD) to resume processing wind energy project applications under the existing statutory and regulatory framework and staying DoD’s review freeze pending final adjudication on the merits.
Background
In 2011, Congress created the Military Aviation and Installation Assurance Siting Clearinghouse (Clearinghouse) within DoD to review wind energy projects that might affect military operations. When a wind project developer files an application with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the FAA refers it to DoD to determine whether the project poses an “unacceptable risk to the national security.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Victor J. Roehm III, Snell & Wilmer,
Christopher P. Colyer, Snell & Wilmer and
Sara M. Ajeti, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Roehm may be contacted at vroehm@swlaw.com
Mr. Colyer may be contacted at ccolyer@swlaw.com
Ms. Ajeti may be contacted at sajeti@swlaw.com
Read the full story...
