Insured’s Bad Faith Claim Survives Summary Judgment
July 13, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurer’s motion for partial summary judgment to dispose of the insured’s bad faith claim was unsuccessful. Page v. State Farm Lloyds, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102293 (E.D. Texas March 18, 2026).
Plaintiff insured alleged that hail and a windstorm caused damage to his property. The damage was reported to the defendant insurer. A claims adjuster inspected the property. Defendant then paid plaintiff $24,493.06, which was the total of the estimated damage minus depreciation and the deductible.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
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
Managing Rising Costs and Shifting Legal Risk for Florida High-Rise and Condominium Projects
May 05, 2026 —
Stephen Hauptman - Ball Janik LLPFlorida's construction defect landscape is experiencing a major shift. The convergence of material and labor cost volatility, regulatory tightening, and increasingly complex litigation strategies is forcing associations, developers, and their counsel to rethink how they approach risk management and dispute resolution. For those managing large-scale condo and high-rise projects, the stakes have never been higher.
The Cost Volatility Trap
Construction material prices rose at a "staggering" 12.6% annualized rate during the first two months of 2026, according to
recent industry analysis. Tariff impacts are projected to lead to more increases of 5.4% to 6.8%, depending on property type. For associations facing construction defect claims, this volatility creates a cascading problem: repair scopes defined two years ago are now dramatically underpriced, and damage calculations that appeared reasonable at discovery are obsolete by the time of settlement.
Courts and mediators are increasingly scrutinizing how cost estimates were developed and whether they account for existing market circumstances. Associations must now commission updated repair assessments more frequently, a practice that increases investigation costs but strengthens the credibility of damage claims. Conversely, defendants are weaponizing cost inflation as a defense, arguing that claimed damages are speculative or inflated. The practical result: repair sequencing and phasing strategies have become critical litigation tools. Associations that can demonstrate a rational, cost-effective repair plan tied to current market data are more favorably placed in settlement negotiations.
Regulatory Pressure and Deliberate Timing
Florida's 2026 condo compliance regime has significantly changed the defect claims landscape. Elevated transparency requirements, stricter reserve funding mandates, and tightened building safety inspection protocols mean that associations now face dual pressures: Comply with new regulations while simultaneously handling construction defect exposure.
This regulatory environment is changing investigation and documentation strategy. Associations that delay defect investigation to avoid triggering reserve funding obligations or disclosure requirements are taking on considerable legal risk. Recent case law such as the Third District Court of Appeal's reaffirmation of Chapter 558's pre-suit mediation requirements, underscores Florida's intent to resolve disputes early. Associations that move deliberately and record carefully during the pre-suit phase gain leverage in mediation and reduce the risk of expensive litigation.
Timing also intersects with repair sequencing. Associations must now balance the urgency of compliance inspections against the strategic advantage of phased repairs. Some associations are using compliance deadlines as a forcing mechanism to accelerate settlement discussions, while others are sequencing repairs to demonstrate good-faith remediation efforts before litigation commences.
The Emerging Risk Transfer Challenge
As construction defect claims grow more complex and costly, the traditional risk transfer systems, such as design-build warranties, contractor bonds, and insurance, are proving inadequate. Developers and general contractors are increasingly shifting risk to subcontractors and material suppliers, fragmenting liability and complicating recovery efforts for associations. Permitting and approval friction is also creating new litigation pressure points. Delays in municipal approvals, changes to building code interpretations, and disputes over remedial work compliance continue to spawn collateral claims that go beyond the original defect. Associations must now anticipate not only defect liability but also regulatory compliance disputes with municipalities, creating a dual-front legal challenge.
For large communities, this means reconsidering the entire risk architecture. Insurance carriers are tightening coverage, and traditional indemnification chains are breaking down. Forward-thinking associations are engaging counsel earlier in the development process to negotiate clearer risk allocation provisions and more robust insurance requirements.
Taking a Data-Driven Approach
Managing rising costs and shifting legal risk in Florida's high-rise and condo market requires a more sophisticated, data-driven approach. Associations must commission frequent cost updates, move deliberately through pre-suit investigation and mediation, and challenge traditional assumptions about risk transfer. Developers and their counsel should view regulatory compliance not as a burden but as an opportunity to demonstrate good-faith risk management and strengthen settlement positioning.
The firms and associations that succeed in 2026 will be those that treat cost volatility, regulatory change, and litigation strategy not as separate challenges but as linked elements of a coherent risk management framework.
Stephen Hauptman is special counsel in Ball Janik LLP’s Fort Lauderdale office. He may be reached at shauptman@balljanik.com.
We Won’t Permit That Excuse!
June 23, 2026 —
Curt Martin & Richard Eiszner - ConsensusDocsA Texas appellate court recently ruled that a building permit wasn’t a condition precedent for a construction project. That caught our attention. Can you build a commercial project without a permit?
But as we read the case, we see the court’s reasoning. And it reminds us of an important legal principle that should inform our contract drafting and negotiation.
The case was a civil suit brought by the project owner against its tenant improvement contractor for work on a medical spa. The owner claimed that the contractor didn’t perform the work properly and didn’t finish construction. The contractor argued that delays and problems were caused by the owner, alleging numerous failures, including the owner’s failure to secure a building permit.
Reprinted courtesy of
Curt Martin, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Richard Eiszner, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@pecklaw.com
Mr. Eiszner may be contacted at reiszner@pecklaw.com
Read the full story...
Contractor Dispute Resolution Framework and Prevention
July 06, 2026 —
Construction ExecutiveWHAT DEFINES A CONTRACTOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION FRAMEWORK
A contractor dispute resolution framework is a structured system of contractual terms, governance processes and escalation pathways designed to prevent, manage and resolve conflicts between contracting parties with minimal disruption to cost, schedule and performance.
The framework operates as both a preventive control and a corrective mechanism. Preventive elements establish clarity in scope, expectations and accountability before work begins. Corrective elements define how disagreements are identified, documented, escalated and resolved once they arise.
Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the full story...
My Current Love-Hate Relationship with AI
June 08, 2026 —
Garret D. Murai - California Construction Law BlogIt’s early in the relationship, I know. But still, there are some things that bug me. Yet, I also know that it’s a relationship in which leaving is not an option, and even if I could, it’s not to the point where it’s so bad that I would do so. So, if you would, let me gripe a bit.
While there’s been much discussion about AI and, at least in my neck of the woods, a fair amount of discussion about how lawyers can, should, and must use AI or risk becoming discarded into the dustbin of history, much less has been written about clients’ use of AI.
Increasingly, I’ve gotten the sense that my clients are using AI. For example, I had a client ask for confirmation that if he disagreed with an administrative decision that he could file a writ of mandate, and if so, whether that deadline was 30, 60 or 90 days after the administrative decision. The answer to the first question was yes, and as to the second question, the answer was 90 days. This was from a client who, smart as he is, probably didn’t know this off the top of his head.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret D. Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Steel Cooling: Steel Costs Steadily Decline After Pandemic Price Shock
May 12, 2026 —
Construction ExecutiveSteel prices have continued trending downward after several years of volatility, according to Gordian’s latest analysis based on RSMeans Data. After dramatic spikes during the pandemic-era supply disruptions, the market has gradually stabilized as supply chains improve and demand softens in some construction segments. However, selective volatility and tariff uncertainty continue to influence pricing across the sector.
Key findings from the report include:
- Steel prices declining: The national average price of structural steel fell to about $2,343.93 per ton in January 2026, down 5.38% from the previous quarter and 7.18% year over year.
- Longer-term price correction: Steel costs have been trending downward since 2024 after earlier volatility driven by inflation, supply shortages and global demand swings.
Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the full story...
New York Moves to Tighten Third-Party Practice: Key Changes to CPLR 1007
March 31, 2026 —
Sophia L. Cahill - SheppardEffective April 18, 2026, the New York Legislature enacted the Avoiding Vexatious Overuse of Impleading to Delay (“AVOID”) Act, amending CPLR 1007—the statute that governs third-party practice. The amendment sharply limits when and how defendants can commence third-party actions, curbing the expansive discretion they previously enjoyed and targeting the late-stage impleaders that often upend case schedules.
What Changes
Before the AVOID Act was signed into law on December 19, 2025 (and subsequently modified by Chapter Amendments A9502 and S8809, signed by Governor Hochul on February 13, 2026[1]), CPLR 1007 gave defendants broad latitude to implead “any person who is or may be liable” for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim. CPLR 1007 specified no outside time limit for the initiation of a third-party claim; courts assessed only whether a defendant’s delay was undue—such as impleading months after the note of issue—and whether the plaintiff would suffer prejudice if the third-party action were not severed.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sophia L. Cahill, SheppardMs. Cahill may be contacted at
scahill@sheppard.com
