The Single Source of Truth in Construction Projects: Reality or Myth?
March 24, 2026 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessThe idea of a single source of truth has been a fundamental part of the digital vision in the AEC industry for many years. From centralized CAD storage to BIM collaboration platforms and, more recently, Common Data Environments, the goal stays the same. Project teams want a reliable place where everyone can access the latest information.
The phrase “single source of truth” comes from database and information management practices in the IT world, where the goal was to maintain one authoritative record of data and eliminate data redundancy. As the AEC industry began adopting digital tools, the same idea was applied to project information and workflows.
Despite decades of technological progress, the question remains whether “one ring that rules them all” can actually be implemented in real construction projects.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
Insurer Granted Summary Judgment, in Part, After Partial Payment of Claim
February 10, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurer was awarded summary judgment, in part, after paying a portion of the insured’s claim for hurricane damage. Taylor v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231406 (S.D. Ala. Nov. 24, 2025).
The Taylors’ home was damaged by Hurricane Sally. They submitted a claim under their homeowners’ policy to State Farm. They reported trees collapsing onto the house and blocking the front door, broken windows and doors, water damage and the roof collapsing in certain rooms of the house.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Soot Constitutes Property Damage
March 17, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiApplying Missouri law, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the jury verdict awarding damages for the presence of soot after a fire. Maxus Metropolitan, LLC v. Travelers Property Cas. Co. of Am., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 29921 (8th Cir. Nov, 17, 2025).
A fire destroyed Phase 6 of a multi-building apartment complex known as the Metropolitan. At the time of the fire, all six phases of the Metropolitan were at various stages of completion, including some of which were occupied by tenants. Phase 6 was still under construction. The fire caused severe damage to Phase 5. The interiors of Phases 1-4 were unaffected by the fire.
Maxus Metropolitan, the owner of the complex, had a policy with Travelers which covered up to $35 million in “direct physical loss, . . or damage.” The policy also provided coverage for up to $5 million in lost business income.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
GRSM Attorneys Named Finalists in 2026 Women, Influence & Power in Law Awards
March 10, 2026 —
Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani attorneys have been shortlisted as finalists for Corporate Counsel’s 2026 Women, Influence & Power in Law (WIPL) Awards, which honor women leaders who have demonstrated a commitment to advancing the empowerment of women in the legal profession.
In the Law Firm Internal Collaborative Leadership category, Stephanie Jones was recognized for her exceptional ability to foster collaboration, mentor talent, and align colleagues across GRSM. Jones has consistently demonstrated leadership rooted in trust, inclusion, and shared purpose, qualities that have strengthened the firm during a period of extraordinary growth. Her impact on the firm’s culture and success will continue as she steps into her role as Chief Operating Partner in June 2026, where she will further build on her leadership in fostering teamwork, mentorship, and alignment across the firm’s national platform.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Congratulations to BWB&O’s 2026 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Honorees!
February 23, 2026 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPBremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is proud to announce that Partners
Nicole Whyte,
Keith Bremer,
John Toohey, and
Tyler Offenhauser have been named to the 2026 Southern California Super Lawyers list. Notably, Nicole Whyte was also selected to the Top 50 Orange County Super Lawyers list, an honor reflecting her outstanding work, leadership, and impact in the legal community.
Partners
Kyle Riddles and
Courtney Serrato, along with Associate Kevin Moore, were also recognized as 2026 Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars.
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.
At the Intersection of Indemnity and Prevailing Wages
March 17, 2026 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIn a case that I’m frankly surprised I don’t see more of, the 2nd District Court of Appeal of California examined an indemnity claim by a subcontractor against a general contractor and public entity who mistakenly believed that a construction project did not require the payment of prevailing wages.
The Nabors Case
In
Nabors Corporate Services, Inc. v. City of Long Beach, 108 Cal.App 540 (2025), subcontractor Nabors Corporate Services, Inc. sued general contractor Tidelands Oil Production Company and the City of Long Beach after it was found liable in a class action lawsuit for failing to pay prevailing wages to its employees. Nabors’ contract with Tidelands did not require the payment of prevailing wages and neither Tidelands nor the City believed that the project, which involved “oil well plug and abandonment” work, required the payment of prevailing wages.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Congratulations to BWB&O’s Orange County Team for Securing a Strong MSJ Result in a Residential Gas Explosion Matter!
May 14, 2026 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPHuge Congratulations to Partner
Kevin Wheeler and Associate
Lindsey Wells for securing a strong result on a Motion for Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication filed on behalf of their client, the City of Murrieta. This was a complex, multi-party matter arising from a residential gas leak and explosion, where Plaintiffs alleged the City and MFPD failed to properly respond to the incident. After multiple complaints were consolidated and extensive defense work narrowed the case, eighteen plaintiffs remained asserting five causes of action against the City, prompting a comprehensive MSJ/MSA targeting liability, causation, and damages.
The Court’s ruling reflects a significant win, particularly on the immunity framework. The Court eliminated the core negligence and assumed-duty claims arising from fire protection and emergency response activities. It further disposed of the misrepresentation and public nuisance claims. At the end of the day, three plaintiffs were dismissed entirely for failure to comply with Government Claims Act requirements, further reducing the scope of the case. While the dangerous condition claim remains, it does so in a very limited posture.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
