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.
The Goal Is the Repair, Not the Lawsuit: What Colorado HOA Boards Should Consider Before Suing a Builder
September 08, 2026 —
Gail Gudder - Colorado Construction Litigation BlogFourteen years ago, we cautioned Colorado homeowners associations against a “ready, fire, aim” approach to construction-defect litigation. In
The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation, we suggested a fairly simple proposition: when legitimate construction defects exist, the goal should be to get them repaired. Litigation should be a last resort, not an end in itself.
Much has changed in Colorado construction-defect law since then. But a recent Douglas County case, and significant amendments to the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (“CCIOA”) enacted in 2025, provide good reasons for HOA board members and owners to revisit that basic premise.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gail Gudder, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMs. Gudder may be contacted at
gudder@hhmrlaw.com
Not Every Job Is Worth Winning: Contract Risk Questions Contractors Should Ask Before They Bid
September 29, 2026 —
Jack Mayo - ConsensusDocsIntroduction
Winning the work is not the same as winning the project, at least financially. Consider a contractor that commits to procure custom or long-lead materials before receiving complete construction documents. Depending on the language of the contract, if the final design is altered after those materials have been ordered, the contractor may be left responsible for replacement costs, procurement delays, or both. Alternatively, a subcontractor that accepts a pay-if-paid provision without investigating the owner’s financing, or prematurely waives lien rights, potentially risks nonpayment for properly performed work.
Such concessions can quickly transform an apparently profitable project into a significant financial burden. A successful bid can therefore become an unsuccessful project if the contractor accepts contractual “red flags” without evaluating their consequences and the long-term financial impacts that they may have. The significance of each risk will depend on the project, the parties, the proposed contract, applicable law, and the contractor’s business objectives. Although not comprehensive, this article identifies several key considerations for that process to help mitigate certain risks.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jack Mayo, Jones Walker LLPMr. Mayo may be contacted at
jmayo@joneswalker.com
USDOT’s DBE Interim Final Rule: How It Affects Current and Out-to-Bid DOT and Airport Projects
June 15, 2026 —
Zachary F. Jacobson - The Construction SeytIn our April 16, 2026 post, we discussed the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Interim Final Rule (IFR) concerning Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) and Airport Concession Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (ACDBE) certification, specifically as it concerns transportation and airport projects in California.
This post addresses a broader question: What does the IFR mean for current and out-to-bid DOT projects operating under pre-existing DBE goals? The answer is that the IFR did more than change who qualifies as a DBE. It also changed how federally funded transportation and airport projects must be handled during the re-evaluation period. This affects active contracts, pending procurements, airport projects, design-build teams, and anyone relying on old assumptions about DBE goals and counting of DBE and ACDBE credit.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Zachary F. Jacobson, Seyfarth Shaw LLPMr. Jacobson may be contacted at
zjacobson@seyfarth.com
Actual Controversy Without Actual Exhaustion: California Supreme Court Allows Declaratory Relief and Bad Faith Claims Against Excess Insurers
August 24, 2026 —
Kyle A. Rudolph - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.California courts were previously split on the issue of whether an insured may bring declaratory relief claims against excess insurers prior to the exhaustion of underlying insurance. Some California courts held that the actual exhaustion of underlying insurance was necessary, whereas other courts allowed for these types of claims to proceed.[
1]
Recently, the California Supreme Court addressed this split of authority and, in doing so, handed down a significant win for policyholders. In Fox Paine & Company, LLC, et al. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company et al., the Court held that insureds may proceed with bringing forth viable declaratory relief and bad faith claims against excess insurers prior to the exhaustion of underlying insurance.[
2] A summary of the Court’s opinion is provided below.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kyle A. Rudolph, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Rudolph may be contacted at
KRudolph@sdvlaw.com
Bad Faith Claim Survives Summary Judgment
June 08, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court denied the insurer’s motion for partial summary judgment on the insured’s bad faith claim, but granted the motion on the insured’s claim for punitive damages. Serbian Orthodox Church v. Brotherhood Mut. Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58234 (S.D. Cal. March 19, 2026).
On February 1, 2023, the Church filed a claim for water damage with Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company (BMIC). The claim was based on rain and wind that caused extensive water intrusion into the Sanctuary, damaging its plaster walls and ceilings and fresco paintings. The claim was assigned to Patrick Hurley. Hurley sent a letter discussing potential bars to coverage and requesting further information and documents from the Church.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Benchmark Litigation Recognizes Andrea DeField Among Nation’s Top Young Litigators
September 08, 2026 —
Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogHunton’s insurance coverage team is proud to celebrate the recognition of
Andrea DeField on
Benchmark Litigation’s 2026 40 & Under List, an annual ranking that highlights the nation’s leading litigators age 40 and under. Andrea was one of only six Hunton lawyers selected and was recognized in the South region. Benchmark Litigation’s 40 & Under List honors attorneys who have distinguished themselves through significant case work, client feedback, and peer review.
This honor reflects Andrea’s reputation as one of the country’s leading policyholder-side insurance recovery litigators and her standing as a trusted advisor to companies facing some of today’s most complex insurance and risk management challenges. As head of Hunton’s cyber insurance practice, Andrea has built her career helping companies manage risk and maximize insurance recovery. Her practice spans the full spectrum of insurance-related issues, from advising clients on contractual risk transfer and insurance program design to representing policyholders in high-stakes coverage and bad faith disputes. She has guided clients through some of the most complex and widely publicized losses in recent years and helps companies recover under a broad range of insurance products, including D&O, professional liability, crime, property, cyber, and general liability policies.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Seventh Circuit, With an Assist From the Illinois Supreme Court, Finds That “Pollution Exclusion” Bars Coverage For Emissions Allowed Under Regulatory Permit
April 20, 2026 —
Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogIn Griffith Foods Int’l Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 24-1217 & 24-1223 (7th Cir. Mar. 13, 2026), the Seventh Circuit addressed the meaning and scope of a pollution exclusion in a standard-form commercial general liability insurance policy for underlying injuries caused by ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions. The insurance dispute arose out of underlying tort litigation involving bodily injury claims, including cancer, allegedly caused by emissions of ethylene oxide over a 35-year period from 1984 through 2019 by Griffith Foods International and later Sterigenics U.S. The pollution exclusion at issue generally barred coverage for “bodily injury” arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants.
Interpreting similar exclusions, the Illinois Supreme Court has previously held that the standard CGL pollution exclusion bars coverage for bodily injuries caused by traditional environmental pollution (essentially industrial emissions of pollutants), but not by more commonplace emissions (such as carbon monoxide from a residential furnace or excess chlorine in a backyard swimming pool). See American States Insurance Co. v. Koloms, 177 Ill. 2d 473 (Ill. 1997). In Griffith Foods, the District Court initially concluded that the pollution exclusion did not apply because the companies emitted EtO pursuant to a permit issued by the IEPA. The District Court reached this latter conclusion by applying Erie Insurance Exchange v. Imperial Marble Corp., 957 N.E.2d 1214 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011), an Illinois intermediate appellate court decision finding it ambiguous whether a CGL policy’s pollution exclusion barred coverage for emissions authorized by regulatory permit.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Taylor, Traub LiebermanMr. Taylor may be contacted at
jtaylor@tlsslaw.com
