UPDATED: Dominion Sues Feds Over Offshore Wind Project Halt, With Action Possible on Others Shut
February 02, 2026 —
Debra K. Rubin - Engineering News-RecordUPDATED: Dominion Energy
filed a federal lawsuit Dec. 23 in Norfolk, Va. against the U.S. Interior Dept.
immediate construction pause order for its 2.6-GW Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind energy project (CVOW) off Virginia Beach, Va., which it developing to begin operation next year. The project is one of five large East Coast offshore wind projects under construction that the federal agency paused, claiming new "national security" risks. Dominion and OSW Project LLC, the entity that includes project co-owner Stonepeak Partners, a private investor, said they seek a
temporary restraining order.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-RecordMs. Rubin may be contacted at
rubind@enr.com
AIA Waivers Under Fire: Why Post-Completion Losses May Still Be Actionable
January 26, 2026 —
Lian Skaf - The Subrogation StrategistOn its face, the power of a waiver of subrogation clause in a construction contract is profound. It bars otherwise actionable – and sometimes egregious – losses resulting from contractor carelessness before they can ever get started. One question courts have long battled with is the limits to the lasting effects of such a waiver. Whether the waiver power can be transferred amongst parties, applied to third parties or used with policies taken out after construction completion are among the few grey areas that have kept subrogation practitioners and the courts busy. Recently, a federal court in Idaho clarified its position on the power to waive subrogation.
In Seneca Ins. Co. v. McAlvain Constr., Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00340-BLW, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 251777 (D. Idaho), the United States District Court for the District of Idaho (District Court) addressed whether a subrogation waiver in an AIA construction contract, signed between an owner and the general contractor, applied to the subsequent owner of a building. In doing so, the court looked at the limiting language of the waiver as well as the contractual posture of the subsequent owner. Ultimately, the court found the waiver inapplicable, denying the motion for summary judgment of Defendant, Cross-Plaintiff McAlvain Construction, Inc. (McAlvain).
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lian Skaf, White and WilliamsMr. Skaf may be contacted at
skafl@whiteandwilliams.com
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.
Georgia HB 676: A Bill Property Owners and Contractors Should Watch
March 24, 2026 —
Robert Lafayette - The Construction SeytProperty owners, contractors, and others dealing with mechanics and materialmen’s liens in Georgia should keep an eye on
HB 676, which is currently making its way through the Georgia General Assembly. The bill aims to curb misuse of the lien process and provide additional remedies to those challenging a frivolous lien filing.
What HB 676 Would Do
HB 676 would add a new Code section (O.C.G.A. § 44-14-366.6) to the mechanics and materialmen’s lien statutes. If a lien is filed “without substantial justification or that is not made in good faith or that is made with malice or a wrongful purpose,” this new Code section would impose a fine of $1,500 per lien on the lien claimant, in addition to any attorney’s fees or court costs incurred by the party challenging the lien.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Robert Lafayette, Seyfarth Shaw LLPMr. Lafayette may be contacted at
rlafayette@seyfarth.com
IRMI Expert Commentary: NY Highest Court Confronts Downstream Risk Transfer for Subcontractor Bodily Injury Claims
March 17, 2026 —
Gregory D. Podolak & Alexander G. Hopkins - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Originally published on IRMI.com, copyright 2026 International Risk Management Institute, Inc.
Subcontractor employee bodily injury claims (so-called action over claims) are a staple of construction risk management in the Empire State—so much so that the phrase “labor law” instinctively invites a shudder among the most experienced general contractors. The savvy among them intensely monitor case law developments and the evolution of the insurance market to ensure a cutting-edge, meticulously developed downstream risk transfer plan. And when guidance arrives from an appellate-level court, it’s a moment to take note.
This is one of those moments.
In late 2025, New York’s highest court—the NY Court of Appeals—had the rare opportunity to examine an all-too-routine bodily injury fact pattern and took the opportunity to closely examine the scope of contractual indemnity and its interplay with additional insured coverage in Dibrino v. Rockefeller Center N., Inc., 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 07077, 2025 WL 3670593 (Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2025).
Reprinted courtesy of
Gregory D. Podolak, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Alexander G. Hopkins, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Podolak may be contacted at GPodolak@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Hopkins may be contacted at AHopkins@sdvlaw.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
End of an (Endangerment) Era
February 23, 2026 —
Sukhmani K. Singh, Christopher P. Colyer & Sean M. Sherlock - Snell & WilmerOn February 12, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the repeal of the 2009 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding and the elimination of all federal GHG emission standards for motor vehicles and engines.
1 The EPA characterized the action as the “single largest deregulatory action in U.S. history.”
2 This development marks a fundamental shift in federal climate policy under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and is expected to trigger immediate and extensive litigation.
In Massachusetts v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court held that GHGs qualify as “air pollutants” under the CAA and that the EPA must determine whether emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare under CAA Section 202(a).
3 Following this decision, on December 7, 2009, the EPA issued two findings. First, the EPA classified six different GHGs as threatening public health and welfare. Second, the EPA determined that emissions from new motor vehicles contribute to that endangerment.
4 Although the findings themselves imposed no direct regulatory requirements, they served as the legal predicate for GHG emission standards for light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles, and later for other CAA programs affecting statutory sources. In 2012, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the Endangerment Finding and related regulations.
5
Reprinted courtesy of
Sukhmani K. Singh, Snell & Wilmer,
Christopher P. Colyer, Snell & Wilmer and
Sean M. Sherlock, Snell & Wilmer
Ms. Singh may be contacted at ssingh@swlaw.com
Mr. Colyer may be contacted at ccolyer@swlaw.com
Mr. Sherlock may be contacted at ssherlock@swlaw.com
Read the full story...
Snell & Wilmer Recognized With Top Honor in Ranking Arizona: Top Law Firms for 2026
June 22, 2026 —
Snell & WilmerPHOENIX – Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that the firm has been voted as the top law firm in Arizona for the 17th consecutive year in the 2026 edition of AZ Big Media’s
Ranking Arizona: The Best of Arizona Business. The firm was again recognized in the category of “Top 10 large law firms in Arizona” which looked at firms with 39 attorneys or more.
“We are honored to receive this award recognizing our team’s ongoing commitment to excellence in service of our clients, our community, and each other,” said Firm Chair Barbara J. Dawson. “We are proud to play a meaningful role in supporting the strength and growth of Arizona’s vibrant business environment amid a rapidly changing global economy.”
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Snell & Wilmer
