What Is the Independent Tort Doctrine? New Case Explains…
August 24, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesFlorida’s Sixth District Court of Appeals in Atout v. HHM Land Trust Dated October 29, 2013, 51 Fla.L.Weekly D1569a (Fla. 6th DCA 2026) recently included an extensive discussion on Florida’s independent tort doctrine. The independent tort doctrine is an important legal doctrine, particularly when parties are in contractual privity. This doctrine stands for the proposition that tort claims must be independent of any breach of contract. See Atout, supra. The Sixth District’s extensive discussion analyzed the indicators to determine this “independence,” which may arise from the source of the duty, the asserted conduct, the damages sought, or even public policy:
Unlike claims that rely on contractual relationships, an “independent” tort is often characterized by a duty imposed by law rather than by agreement. As to this consideration, United States District Court Judge Steven Merryday has explained that the independent tort doctrine honors the same divide as the economic loss rule, but rather than looking at the nature of the loss, it focuses on the source of the duty allegedly breached. “If a contract imposes a duty, and the defendant breaches that duty, the plaintiff must sue for breach of contract. If society imposes the duty, the plaintiff must sue in tort.” Following this reasoning, courts should consider whether the alleged breach of a duty in tort coincides or overlaps with a duty imposed by a contract. If the duty at issue is within the scope of a contract, and the relationship of the parties that led to the creation of that duty stems from a contract, then that duty’s source is from contract and any alleged tort claims based on a breach of those duties may not be “independent.”
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Your AI Tool Could Be Your Next Breach of Contract
October 20, 2026 —
Laurie Choi & Christian Fernandez - Snell & WilmerLike many industries, the construction industry is rapidly adopting artificial intelligence. AI-powered tools now help construction teams estimate costs, transcribe meetings, summarize RFIs, model schedules, and manage project documents faster than ever before. But amid this rush toward efficiency, a serious risk hides in plain sight: every time project documents are uploaded into a third-party AI tool, contractual confidentiality obligations may be implicated — or outright breached — exposing companies to potentially substantial and uncapped liability.
General contractors often face strict confidentiality and nondisclosure obligations, whether under the prime construction contract or a separate NDA. This is especially true for complex projects or those involving proprietary technology — such as data centers, medical or scientific facilities, and energy generation and storage facilities. These confidentiality clauses typically define “confidential information” broadly to encompass all non-public information provided for the project, including plans, specifications, pricing, schedules, RFPs, and even the contract terms themselves. These confidentiality obligations almost always flow down to subcontractors.
Reprinted courtesy of
Laurie Choi, Snell & Wilmer and
Christian Fernandez, Snell & Wilmer
Ms. Choi may be contacted at lchoi@swlaw.com
Mr. Fernandez may be contacted at cfernandez@swlaw.com
Read the full story...
Los Angeles Times Ranks Lewis Brisbois Third Largest Firm in LA County, Largest for Litigation
June 08, 2026 —
Lewis BrisboisThe Los Angeles Times has ranked Lewis Brisbois the third largest firm in LA County by attorney headcount, and first for number of litigation attorneys.
Lewis Brisbois, whose Los Angeles office is led by Co-Managing Partners Jana I. Lubert and Kathleen Walker, has 273 attorneys working in LA County, including 167 partners.
The firm ranked No. 1 for Litigation in the county, with 206 attorneys under the leadership of Partner Craig Holden.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
DOI Finalizes Long-Awaited Modernization of Type A Natural Resource Damage Assessment Regulations
August 03, 2026 —
Amanda G. Halter, Ashleigh K. Myers & Jillian Marullo - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogFor nearly three decades, the U.S. Department of the Interior’s (DOI) simplified “Type A” Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) regulations were available more in theory than in practice, constrained by dated models, narrow geographic applicability and a $100,000 cap that rarely matched the economics of modern environmental claims. DOI has now finalized revisions to the Type A natural resource damages assessment procedures under 43 C.F.R. Part 11 for hazardous substance releases under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA), with the final rule published in the
Federal Register on July 13, 2026 and scheduled to become effective August 12, 2026.
As discussed
previously, DOI has sought to modernize what it views as an “inefficient and inflexible” process and restore the Type A procedure to its intended role as a more streamlined pathway for smaller, less contentious NRD claims. The final rule adopts a $5 million default damages threshold, allows use above that amount if all parties agree, clarifies that Type A may be used in all environments and for all natural resource types, and removes legacy model appendices that had tethered the process to outdated formulas.
Reprinted courtesy of
Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury,
Ashleigh K. 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...
No Ink, No Problem: When Employees and Agents Can Enforce Arbitration Agreements
August 11, 2026 —
Jordan Heath & Jacob Morrison - ConsensusDocsArbitration is a fundamental component of modern construction contracting. Many in the industry recognize the potential benefits and protections arbitration can provide to the business in the event of a dispute. But an important question many contracts do not address is: who does the arbitration agreement cover? Does it include the business entity only, or the individuals acting on behalf of the entity?
As courts have long recognized, entities can generally only act through their employees, representatives, or agents.[1] This article discusses the circumstances in which an agent may rely on an arbitration provision entered by its employer. This is known as the agency doctrine.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jordan Heath, Associate, Jones Walker LLP and Jacob Morrison, Law Student University of Georgia, Jones Walker LLP
Read the full story...Mr. Heath may be contacted at
jheath@joneswalker.com
Federal Court Highlights the Strategic Value of Additional Insured Coverage
June 22, 2026 —
Michael S. Levine - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogA recent decision from the District of Maryland underscores a recurring—but often underutilized—opportunity for policyholders: securing and enforcing additional insured coverage under another party’s liability policy. In Charter Oak Fire Insurance Co. v. Builders Premier Insurance Co., the court held that an equipment lessor qualified as an additional insured under the lessee’s policy and was entitled to a primary defense.
The decision is a useful reminder that additional insured coverage can fundamentally shift defense obligations and materially reduce a policyholder’s exposure. We build on the decision to highlight the practical steps policyholders should take to ensure that all potentially available insurance is identified and pursued.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLPMr. Levine may be contacted at
mlevine@hunton.com
ACEC Research Institute Report: Real Risk of AI Isn’t Technology. It’s the Org Chart.
September 01, 2026 —
ACEC Research InstituteWASHINGTON (August 19, 2026) – The ACEC Research Institute today released
Leading Through AI Risk: The Enterprise Framework for Engineering Firm Leaders, a new study finding that the most significant risks artificial intelligence poses to engineering firms are organizational rather than technological, and that firms treating AI as an IT initiative are managing the wrong issue.
The report, part of the Institute’s yearslong Firm of the Future initiative, combines an extensive literature review with in-depth interviews of 21 leaders drawn from engineering firms, public infrastructure owners, technology vendors, insurance and legal professionals, licensing and regulatory agencies, and AI consultants.
The report groups AI risk into eight interconnected domains:
- technical reliability and model risk
- professional liability and standard of care risk
- data governance, privacy, and intellectual property risk
- organizational and workforce risk
- ethical, regulatory, and reputational risk
- operational and cybersecurity risk
- financial and business model risk
- strategic leadership and enterprise governance risk
The last serves as the integrating domain through which firms coordinate responsible AI adoption enterprise wide.
The report stresses that firms do not experience these risks one at a time. Weak oversight may create legal liability. Workforce gaps may affect quality assurance. “Understanding these interactions,” the study notes, “is often more important than understanding individual risks independently.”
About the ACEC Research Institute
The ACEC Research Institute is the independent research arm of the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC). Its mission is to fund and deliver research to equip the engineering industry with actionable intelligence on the issues critical to its success. Learn more at www.acecresearchinstitute.org.
From CERCLA to Drinking Water: D.C. Circuit’s PFAS Ruling Enters a Second Regulatory Fight
October 06, 2026 —
Ashleigh K. Myers, Amanda G. Halter & Jillian Marullo - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogOn August 18, 2026, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
upheld EPA’s designation of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund). In Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. EPA, the court rejected challenges to EPA’s interpretation of CERCLA Section 102(a), the adequacy of its notice and comment process, its analysis of costs and benefits, and its decision to proceed despite uncertainty about future response actions and costs.
This decision is already being invoked in a separate D.C. Circuit challenge to EPA’s 2024 PFAS drinking water rule promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Six days after the CERCLA decision, respondent intervenors cited it as supplemental authority in American Water Works Association v. EPA, No. 24-1188, ahead of oral argument scheduled for
September 18, 2026. The Chamber of Commerce decision may assist the respondent intervenors on certain notice and comment and economic analysis arguments, but its significance should not be overstated. The principal challenges to the standards for the four PFAS subject to EPA’s Hazard Index-based maximum contaminant level (MCL) turn on requirements specific to the SDWA, and EPA itself now agrees that those provisions were promulgated through an unlawful process.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ashleigh K. Myers, Pillsbury,
Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury and
Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury
Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com
Read the full story...
