It’s More Than a Feeling: Proving Construction Damages and When You Should Hire an Expert to Help Do It
July 27, 2026 —
Bradley E. Sands & Katie McCracken - ConsensusDocsWhen you win a bid, you might be singing that everything is going your way. Then something goes wrong. The owner hands you defective plans, sits on RFI responses or other critical information, or otherwise upends the work. The costs pile up through no fault of your own. You feel wronged, and you want to be made whole. But a feeling that you got burned is not enough. To recover, that feeling has to become something the law recognizes as damages. So, what are damages, and how do you prove them?
At bottom, contract damages are the money that puts the non-breaching party (i.e., the party that doesn’t breach the contract) in the position it would have occupied had the contract been performed.
Reprinted courtesy of
Bradley E. Sands, Jones Walker LLP and Katie McCracken, Summer Associate, University of Georgia School of Law
Read the full story...Mr. Sands may be contacted at
bsands@joneswalker.com
Data Center Construction: Contractors Must Step Up
May 26, 2026 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessI attended the
Datacenter Forum 2026 in Helsinki last week. Over 400 people packed the room. Walking out, I had one overriding thought: Is construction operating in a different century from the technology it is being asked to house?
Is Our Industry on Par?
Ciarán Forde, Senior Vice President at CTS Nordics, opened the forum with a statement that set the tone for everything that followed: data centers are no longer just a technical challenge; they are a national strategy. Before AI, Ciarán had worked in telecoms, where data centers were already complex. But now, he said flatly, everything has changed, and the industry must rethink everything.
The numbers behind the claim are staggering. Current AI data center racks run at 40 to 100 kW. In three years, 800 kW per rack is on the roadmap. And the development cycle for a new chip is roughly one year, which means deployments begin aging out almost as soon as they are commissioned.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
The Deadline to File Suit on a Public Works Payment Payment Bond is Triggered by a Claimant’s Work on a Project Not by a Claimant’s Work Under a Contract
June 02, 2026 —
Garret D. Murai - California Construction Law BlogCalifornia law requires that prime contractors furnish a payment bond – providing for payment to lower-tiered subcontractors and suppliers – on state and local public works projects with a value in excess of $25,000. There are three conditions that must be satisfied when a claimant makes a claim against a payment bond on a public works project in California:
- First, generally, the claimant must have served a preliminary notice, unless the claimant is a first-tier subcontractor or supplier;
- The claimant must have “ceased to provide work” on the project; and
- The claimant must file suit against the payment bond no later than six (6) months after the period in which a stop payment notice must be given or, in other words, the earlier of 270 days after completion of the public works project or 210 days after a notice of completion or cessation was recorded on a public works project.
In
Tarlton & Sons, Inc. v. Great American Insurance Company, 111 Cal.App.5th 376 (2025), the 2nd District Court of Appeal examined whether a subcontractor timely filed a claim against a payment bond when a prime contractor was terminated and replaced by another prime contractor who the subcontractor continued to perform work for.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret D. Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
A Permitting Base Checklist for Data Centers and Power Plants
June 02, 2026 —
Michael S. McDonough, Stephen J. Humes & Stacey C. Wright - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogThere is a lot of talk these days about “license to operate” for data centers, meaning management of the relationships with stakeholders and broader communities concerning both the benefits and adverse consequences of locating a facility in a particular locale. Here, we are speaking of “license to operate” more literally—namely, the legal and regulatory permitting and approval requirements for a privately owned data center whether by itself or colocated with a power generating plant.
Our Base Checklist includes generally and potentially applicable permitting requirements for development and operation, using California as an example. (Taking legal authority Frank Sinatra out of context, “If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere.”) The actual requirements for a given facility would depend, in part, on local law, including planning and zoning laws and plans, and the environment of the site. Just as examples, additional permitting and mitigation requirements might apply if sensitive receptors are located nearby (e.g., noise mitigation for residential dwellings), if sensitive and protected biological resources (e.g., jurisdictional waters and/or protected species) would be impacted, or if the present or former land uses require additional measures (e.g., hazardous materials remediation, mitigation for conversion of prime farmland, or protection of cultural resources). The scope of permit requirements would ultimately be determined by the applicable regulatory agencies and by the lead and responsible agencies under the applicable state environmental land use regime—in our reference case here, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. McDonough, Pillsbury,
Stephen J. Humes, Pillsbury and
Stacey C. Wright, Pillsbury
Mr. McDonough may be contacted at michael.mcdonough@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Humes may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Wright may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com
Read the full story...
Segal McCambridge Shareholders and Associates Recognized in 2027 Best Lawyers in America®
September 01, 2026 —
Segal McCambridgeSegal McCambridge is pleased to announce that 24 firm shareholders and associates have been recognized in the 2027 editions of the Best Lawyers in America® and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. Best Lawyers® is an elite global network of legal professionals recognized through a trusted, peer-reviewed distinction. For more than four decades, its Purely Peer Review® methodology has upheld the principle that recognition should be earned through the opinions of fellow attorneys, not marketing influence or paid listings. No fees are accepted for consideration or inclusion.
"This Best Lawyers recognition is especially meaningful because it reflects the caliber of advocacy our attorneys bring to clients every day, across a wide range of practice areas," said Jason P. Eckerly, Segal McCambridge Managing Shareholder. "We are proud to see so many of our colleagues honored for their legal skills, dedication, and professionalism. This continued recognition underscores the strength of our national platform and the depth of talent across our firm."
Segal McCambridge's attorneys named in Best Lawyers in America® include:
Jason P. Eckerly; Chicago, IL; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
Scott R. Emery; New York, NY; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants
Jay Evans; Pittsburgh, PA; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
Richard H. Glucksman; Los Angeles, CA; Construction Law
Nathan R. Horne; Austin, TX; Construction Law; Litigation - Construction
Alice Sacks Johnston; Pittsburgh, PA; Commercial Litigation; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
Patrick M. Kemp; Austin, TX; Litigation - Insurance
Mitchell P. Morinec; Chicago, IL; Commercial Litigation
Anthony J. Sbarra, Jr.; Milton, MA; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
Alan J. Taylor; Southfield, MI; Litigation - Construction; Real Estate Law
Kenneth P. Williams; Southfield, MI; Insurance Law; Litigation - Insurance; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
David J. Yates; Southfield, MI; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Segal McCambridge's attorneys named in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America® include:
Masood Syed Ali; Chicago, IL; Labor and Employment Law - Management
Mari Bryn Dowdy; Austin, TX; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
Chaniece M. Hill; Chicago, IL; Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants
Mandy Kolodkin; Indianapolis, IN; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Jeffrey M. Marchese; New York, NY; Litigation - Construction
Courtney C. McLaren; Memphis, TN; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Benjamin J. Nellans; Chicago, IL; Commercial Litigation
Christopher P. Norton; Los Angeles, CA; Commercial Litigation
Nelson T. Rainey; Memphis, TN; Family Law; Health Care Law; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Nicholas E. Richardson; Tampa, FL; Insurance Law
Jordan B. Rosenberg; Philadelphia, PA; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Ian M. Sadler; Austin, TX; Commercial Litigation; Insurance Law
About Best Lawyers®
Best Lawyers® is an elite global network of legal professionals recognized through trusted, peer-reviewed distinction. For over four decades, its Purely Peer Review® methodology has upheld the principle that recognition should be earned through the opinions of fellow attorneys, not marketing influence or paid listings. Each year, millions of confidential evaluations are collected worldwide, contributing to one of the legal industry's most rigorous and trusted vetting processes. Only about 5% of lawyers in the United States and 3% globally are recognized, reflecting the selectivity and credibility of the results. No fees are accepted for consideration or inclusion, maintaining the integrity and independence of all recognitions. For more information, visit: www.bestlawyers.com.
About Segal McCambridge
Segal McCambridge has built a reputation as a national law firm of accomplished trial attorneys for almost four decades. Founded in 1986, the firm has grown from a four-lawyer shop in Chicago to a firm with more than 20 offices nationwide. The firm routinely counsels and defends clients, including Fortune 500 companies, corporations, and individuals, across the United States in complex litigation matters including, but not limited to: asbestos, class action, construction, employment, environmental, food and beverage, insurance coverage and bad faith, life sciences, product liability, professional liability, technology and cyber risk, transportation, and warranty. For more information, visit: www.segalmccambridge.com.
Pursuing Claims for Loss Caused by Recent Kona Low Storms for Homeowners and Businesses
May 12, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe recent Kona Low storms that hit all islands were devastating, causing significant property damage. Homeowners and businesses will be seeking coverage under their insurance policies to recover for their losses. Here is a brief look at what may be covered and which exclusions may be troublesome in homeowners’ and commercial property policies.
Typically, both a homeowners’ policy and a commercial property policy include a grant of coverage for “direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property.” Covered perils are listed, including such events as fire, lightning, or windstorm. Covered Property includes dwellings, other structures on the property and personal property. Additional coverages are usually provided. This includes debris removal after a peril insured against or collapse of a structure. In a homeowners’ policy, additional living expenses are likely covered when the damaged home is not fit to live in.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
A Customized Approach to Data Center Construction
June 29, 2026 —
James P. Bobotek, Arielle L. Murphy & Robert A. James - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogData center construction projects are, to put it mildly, distinct. They differ from traditional construction in a host of manners, and are particularly distinctive because the value of the facility depends on unique measures of performance. A center that cannot meet uptime, cooling, redundancy or connectivity standards will not achieve its mission, whether or not the structure itself meets standard industry contract-form “substantial completion” or “mechanical completion” definitions.
Owners, developers, lenders, operators and hyperscalers—especially hyperscalers!—want it all. They seek favorable and stable pricing, accelerated delivery and sophisticated components, all of which are evolving in “real project time.” Standard construction contract forms deserve extensive modifications to align clauses with expectations, with a heightened focus on systems integration, commissioning, and allocation of special risks. This article details customized considerations for drafting, negotiating and administering data center design and construction agreements.
Reprinted courtesy of
James P. Bobotek, Pillsbury,
Arielle L. Murphy, Pillsbury and
Robert A. James, Pillsbury
Mr. Bobotek may be contacted at james.bobotek@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Murphy may be contacted at arielle.murphy@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com
Read the full story...
Only A Contractor Can Appeal a Contracting Officer’s Final Decision
April 20, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent decision from the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals confirms that “only a ‘contractor’ may file an appeal of a contracting officer’s final decision.” Wattiker v. General Services Administration, 2026 WL 846001 (CBCA 2026) (citation omitted).
The term “contractor is not an ambiguous term. A ‘contractor’ refers to a party to a federal government contract. Wattiker (citing the Contract Disputes Act). This is why the Contract Disputes Act does not apply to parties that are NOT in contract with the federal government. Id.
In Wattiker, an appellant (appealing party) challenged the dismissal of a co-appellant. The co-appellant was dismissed because he was not a contractor, i.e., a party in contract with the federal government. In other words, the co-appellant had no privity of contract with the federal government.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
