New Florida Law Adds Licensing Risk to Contractor/Subcontractor Payment Disputes
September 29, 2026 —
Brett J. Moritz & Ali Heyat - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Effective July 1, 2026, Florida’s newly enacted Section 489.1295 of the Florida Statutes, titled “Prohibition Against Nonpayment,” requires licensed contractors to timely compensate subcontractors and suppliers for labor, services, or materials. Enacted as part of Senate Bill 290 (Ch. 2026-3, Laws of Fla.), the statute adds a new basis for instituting disciplinary proceedings against a contractor’s license if a payment is knowingly or willfully withheld.
While this is not a sweeping overhaul of Florida construction payment laws by any means, contractors should be aware that nonpayment disputes with subcontractors and suppliers may carry potential licensing consequences.
Reprinted courtesy of
Brett J. Moritz, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Ali Heyat, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Moritz may be contacted at bmoritz@pecklaw.com
Mr. Heyat may be contacted at aheyat@pecklaw.com
Read the full story...
HHMR and Every One of its Partners Recognized by Legal 500 in Denver Elite – Real Estate
April 20, 2026 —
David McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation BlogHiggins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC is pleased to announce its recognition as a Tier 1 firm in the Denver Elite rankings for Real Estate, a category that includes construction law and construction litigation, by The Legal 500. In addition, each of the firm’s partners has been individually recognized in the same rankings.
The firm’s individual recognitions include:
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Building in Arizona’s Data Center Boom: How Federal Executive Orders, State Regulation, and National-Security Policy Are Reshaping the Rules for Developers
June 02, 2026 —
Ryan J. Regula - Snell & WilmerDevelopers and practitioners evaluating data center projects in Arizona face a regulatory environment shifting on three fronts simultaneously. Federal executive orders are opening new land, streamlining permitting, and channeling financial incentives toward qualifying projects — but they are not preempting the state and local rules that most directly affect project economics. A carve-out in the December 2025 Artificial Intelligence (AI) Framework Executive Order preserves Arizona’s authority over data center infrastructure, meaning the Arizona Corporation Commission’s (ACC) rate-classification docket, municipal zoning restrictions, water-use ordinances, and pending grid cost-allocation legislation remain the binding constraints on project feasibility. Understanding where federal tailwinds end and state and local headwinds begin is essential for any developer sizing risk or selecting sites in the state.
The Federal Landscape: An Interlocking Framework of Executive Orders
Five interlocking executive orders are accelerating data center development nationally, but none overrides Arizona’s authority over siting energy, or infrastructure.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ryan J. Regula, Snell & WilmerMr. Regula may be contacted at
rregula@swlaw.com
Bridging the Gap at Alaska’s Juneau Creek
September 21, 2026 —
Tim Newcomb - Engineering News-RecordThe largest single-span steel plate girder bridge launch in the nation wasn’t about setting records. Alaska’s Juneau Creek Bridge design was a matter of necessity. The fully erected steel plate girder bridge, featuring a 440-ft main span hovering 285 ft above the Juneau Creek, was part of the larger Sterling Highway project. It offered a logistical challenge but was chosen among over a dozen bridge types due to the unique constraints brought by the mountainous site.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tim Newcomb, Engineering News-RecordENR may be contacted at
enr@enr.com
White and Williams LLP Secures Trio of Cyber Coverage Wins
May 12, 2026 —
Gabriel Darwick & Sean Elman - White and Williams LLPThree weeks, three jurisdictions, three cyber wins.
White and Williams picked up the first victory on March 9, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, where the court granted summary judgment to their client enforcing a Cyber Crime Loss sublimit. See Perry & Perry Builders, Inc. v. Cowbell Cyber and Obsidian Specialty Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49409 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 9, 2026). In Perry, the insured was deceived into transferring money intended for a vendor to an unintended third party. The insurer acknowledged that the loss was covered and paid the insured the policy’s Cyber Crime Loss sublimit. Discontent with a single sublimit, the insured argued that because it wired the money to the fraudster in separate transfers, it was entitled to a second Cyber Crime Loss sublimit.
Reprinted courtesy of
Gabriel Darwick, White and Williams LLP and
Sean Elman, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Darwick may be contacted at darwickg@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Elman may be contacted at elmans@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the full story...
Snell & Wilmer’s Orange County Office Recognized as One of the “Best Places to Work” by the Orange County Business Journal
August 16, 2026 —
Snell & WilmerORANGE COUNTY – Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that its Orange County office has been selected as one of the 2026 “Best Places to Work in Orange County” by the Orange County Business Journal. This recognition honors outstanding employers that foster exceptional workplace cultures and demonstrate a strong commitment to employee engagement, professional development, and organizational excellence.
The annual awards recognize Orange County employers that create positive workplace environments and set the standard for employee satisfaction and organizational success. Honorees are selected through a comprehensive evaluation process that includes confidential employee surveys and an independent assessment of company policies, practices, philosophy, systems, and demographics.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Snell & Wilmer
Beyond the Storm: How Non-Hurricane Catastrophes Expose Florida’s Construction Defect Blind Spot
August 11, 2026 —
Franchesco “Frank” Soto & Amanda L. Gonzalez - Ball JanikOn June 8, 2026, a magnitude 6.1 earthquake struck the Gulf near the coast of Cuba, the largest instrumentally recorded earthquake in the Gulf since seismic monitoring began in 1950. Buildings swayed, offices were evacuated, and many residents along the east coast of Florida, from Miami-Dade to Jacksonville, felt the ground shake. Although no tsunami followed and reported structural damage was limited, this event exposed a blind spot that Florida property owners, developers, and their counsel cannot afford to ignore: catastrophic stress on Florida buildings does not always come in the form of a named storm.
Florida property owners have grown accustomed to preparing for wind, storm surge, floods, and torrential rain. Far less attention is paid to earthquakes, sinkholes, tornadoes, hail, and non-tropical flooding, each of which can place unexpected stress on buildings not designed with those forces top of mind and can trigger deficiencies in buildings that were not otherwise known, expose design failures, and create an urgency for both insurance claims and subsequent litigation.
Non-Hurricane Triggers of Latent Defects
Seismic activity is the clearest example. Florida’s building code accounts for wind loads, not seismic forces, meaning even a moderate earthquake can reveal weaknesses in curtain wall systems, structural connections, or foundations that were already marginal. Sinkholes, driven by Florida’s karst limestone geology, remain a persistent threat, particularly in Central Florida, where subsurface voids can undermine foundations without warning. Non-tropical flooding, like the record rainfall that flooded South Florida in June 2024, can intrude through building envelopes and waterproofing systems that were never stress-tested for such volumes of water. Tornadoes and hail, while more localized, can cause roofing and envelope failures that mimic, mask, or trigger latent construction defects.
The Litigation and Coverage Disputes That Follow
When one of these events strikes a building already carrying undisclosed or unresolved construction defects, the resulting disputes become considerably more complex. Property owners and associations must move quickly to document existing conditions and distinguish damage caused by the event from pre-existing defective construction, the same causation issue that arises in the hurricane context under Chapter 558, but often without the benefit of established precedent or adjuster experience with these less common events.
Insurance coverage disputes frequently follow close behind. Carriers may dispute whether an earthquake, flood, or other peril is covered at all, particularly where policies contain earthquake or flood exclusions requiring separate endorsements, or anti-concurrent causation language that can bar coverage entirely when a covered peril combines with an uncovered one, such as pre-existing defective construction, to cause a loss. Sinkhole claims carry their own statutory framework under Florida law, requiring specific testing protocols and reporting before a claim is compensable. Developers and contractors, in turn, may find themselves defending Chapter 558 claims while simultaneously litigating with their own carriers over defense and indemnity obligations.
Practical Risk Mitigation Strategies
Property owners, associations, and developers can take several concrete steps to reduce their exposure. First, maintain thorough documentation, including engineering reports, maintenance logs, and photographs, well before any event occurs. This documentation is often the deciding factor in causation disputes. Second, engage structural engineers and consultants immediately following any seismic event, unusual flooding, or storm damage, regardless of whether a hurricane is involved. Prompt inspection preserves evidence and can help prevent inadvertent waiver of construction defect claims. Third, review insurance policies regularly with counsel or a broker to confirm earthquake, flood, and sinkhole coverage matches the property’s actual risk profile, rather than assuming a standard property policy responds to every peril. Fourth, avoid rushing to remediate before conditions are documented and/or before consulting counsel. Well-intentioned repairs can inadvertently compromise evidence needed to prove a defect claim.
The June earthquake was a reminder that Florida’s catastrophic risk profile extends beyond hurricane season. Property owners, associations, and developers who build readiness plans around all forms of catastrophic stress, not just named storms, will be far better positioned when the next unexpected event occurs.
Franchesco “Frank” Soto is a partner in
Ball Janik’s Construction Defect Practice Group in Miami. He may be reached at fsoto@balljanik.com.
Amanda L. Gonzalez is a litigation attorney in
Ball Janik’s Construction Defect Practice Group in Miami. She may be reached at agonzalez@balljanik.com.
GRSM Defeats Class Certification in Precedent-Setting HOA Management Case
September 15, 2026 —
Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Partners Fletcher Alford and Kevin Liu and Associate Jigar Desai secured a favorable outcome on behalf of an HOA management company in a precedent-setting class action before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, obtaining denial of the plaintiff’s motion for class certification and dismissal without prejudice of the three claims at issue.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant received earnings credit payments from a bank in exchange for maintaining HOA deposit accounts and failed to disclose the arrangement to its HOA clients. The plaintiff sought more than $40 million in damages, asserting five claims: (1) breach of contract for failing to act in class members’ best interests by not disclosing the alleged earnings credit arrangement; (2) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) based on alleged violations of California Civil Code §§ 5375, 5375.5, and 5380; (3) breach of fiduciary duty based on the alleged undisclosed arrangement; (4) violation of the UCL for unfair business practices arising from the alleged nondisclosure; and (5) unjust enrichment. The plaintiff sought class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) only as to its second, third, and fourth causes of action.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
