The “Pay When Paid” Clause in California Construction—Strategies as the Battle Continues
August 03, 2026 —
William L. Porter - Porter Law GroupIt is well known in California Construction circles that the “Pay If Paid” clause is illegal in this state. There is a great distinction, though, between this clause and a similar clause, known as a “Pay When Paid” clause. A pay if paid clause allows a contractor to tell a subcontractor that if the contractor is unpaid for the subcontractor’s work, then the contractor has no legal obligation to pay the subcontractor, ever. For a great variety of reasons, the California Supreme Court, in the case of Wm. R. Clarke Corp v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America (1997) 15 Cal.4th 882, declared this type of clause illegal in California Construction.
Although the pay if paid clause is illegal in California, the pay when paid clause is still perfectly legal and is found in many subcontracts that contractors issue to their subcontractors. The pay when paid clause allows a contractor to delay paying its subcontractors until the dispute between the contractor and the property owner over payment has been resolved and the contractor is paid by the property owner. Although seemingly reasonable (since it merely delays payment until the contractor is paid by the owner, thereby providing a funding source to pay subcontractors), significant problems still arise.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Porter, Porter Law GroupMr. Porter may be contacted at
bporter@porterlaw.com
In the Eye of the Beholder: Court of Appeal Finds Duty of Care Owed by Owner and Contractors for Death of Minors Caused by Independent Truck Driver
May 05, 2026 —
Garret D. Murai - California Construction Law BlogI was a T.A. for my high school history teacher, a really smart and nice guy, Mr. Reynolds. In the room at the back of the classroom which served as his office he had
the picture above. It’s called “My Wife and My Mother-in-Law” and is taken from a German postcard from 1888. Depending on how you look it, you might see fashionable young lady, or an old lady.
Cases can sometimes be like that: You see what you want to see. The next case is also like that.
In
Lorenzo v. Calex Engineering, Inc., 110 Cal.App.5th 49 (2025), the 2nd District Court of Appeals reversed a motion for summary judgment granted in favor of an owner and its contractors in a case involving the death of two minors struck by a dump truck enroute to a non-permitted off-site staging area.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret D. Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Jurisdiction Over Foreign Manufacturers in Construction Litigation
May 14, 2026 —
Timothy J. Repass & Miki J. Saito - Wood Smith Henning BermanA recent decision from the Washington Court of Appeals provides important guidance on personal jurisdiction over foreign product manufacturers in construction and infrastructure litigation. In King County v. Aquatherm GmbH, No. 85572-7-I (Wash.Ct. App.Div.I)(unpublished), the court addressed whether a German manufacturer could be sued in Washington for alleged defects in piping used in major public infrastructure projects. The ruling offers a detailed, fact-driven roadmap for how Washington courts evaluate jurisdiction over foreign manufacturers operating through layered distribution networks. It also reflects a broader trend toward focusing on real-world commercial conduct rather than formal corporate structure.
Background of the Case
King County sued after widespread failures in polypropylene piping installed at the King County Correctional Facility. The pipe, manufactured by Aquatherm GmbH in Germany, was marketed, distributed, and installed through a network of U.S.-based entities. Following a six-week trial, the jury returned a verdict exceeding $18 million on claims under the Washington Product Liability Act and Consumer Protection Act. Aquatherm challenged, among other things, the trial court's exercise of personal jurisdiction.
Reprinted courtesy of
Timothy J. Repass, Wood Smith Henning Berman and
Miki J. Saito, Wood Smith Henning Berman
Mr. Repass may be contacted at trepass@wshblaw.com
Ms. Saito may be contacted at msaito@wshblaw.com
Read the full story...
GRSM Partner Debra Ellwood Meppen Recognized as 2026 Legal Visionary by Los Angeles Times
June 02, 2026 —
Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani proudly congratulates Partner Debra Ellwood Meppen on being named a 2026 Legal Visionary by the Los Angeles Times. The LA Times Studios 2026 Legal Visionaries List recognizes lawyers in Southern California who “exemplify a forward-thinking approach to the law, elevating both their profession and the people who depend on it.” Meppen is recognized for helping shape the future of the legal profession through her leadership, professionalism, and integrity.
Published as part of the May 2026 issue highlighting Southern California’s leading law firms and attorneys, the Legal Visionaries section honors attorneys making a significant impact on the legal industry and the broader business community.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Surety Liability Is Coextensive with Its Bond Principal
April 14, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent Miller act payment bond case, U.S. f/u/b/o Whitetail General Constructors v. Northcon, Inc., 2026 WL 46671 (D.Mont. 2026), contains a short noteworthy discussion as to a surety’s liability being coextensive with that of its bond principal. If you are bonded, or you are pursuing a bond, you need to appreciate this, which is why this is a noteworthy discussion:
A “surety’s liability on a Miller Act bond must be at least coextensive with the obligations imposed by the Act if the bond is to have its intended effect.” “Therefore, ‘the liability of a surety and its principal on a Miller Act payment bond is coextensive with the contractual liability of the principal only to the extent that it is consistent with the rights and obligations created under the Miller Act.’” In other words, “[w]here a subcontract’s terms are consistent with the Miller Act’s provisions, the surety’s liability on the Miller Act bond is coextensive with the contractual liability of its princip[al].”
“The liability of a surety under the Miller Act is controlled by federal law, rather than state contract law[.]” The court may, however, “look to state law when interpreting contractual provisions” in a Miller Act case.
“[T]he measure of recovery under the Miller Act is generally determined by the terms of the subcontract [or underlying contract].”
Northcon, supra, at *4-5 (internal citations omitted).
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Properly Taking Judicial Notice of Florida’s Building Code
October 12, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMany construction defects cases involve Florida’s Building Code. A recent non-construction case, BSREP II PBG Resort, LLC v Ginsburg, 2026 WL 265226 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026), discussed a court taking judicial notice of a provision in the Florida Building Code. This case was a premise liability case where the plaintiff tripped in an asphalt parking lot. The plaintiff, without complying with proper procedural notice protocol, asked the court to take judicial notice of a section of Florida’s Building Code, i.e., admitting this section as relevant evidence in the case. The trial court granted the request for judicial notice and the plaintiff used this as the basis of her cross-examination, the jury instructions, and closing argument that the violation of this section of Florida’s Building Code was evidence of negligence. This was in error.
First, Florida’s Building Code is NOT a statute but an administrative rule. Ginsburg, supra. As an administrative rule, a court “may” but is not obligated to take judicial notice of the rule – it is a permissive judicial notice request per Florida Statute s. 90.203 and 90.202(9). This is important because the trial court viewed Florida’s Building Code as a statute it mandatorily had to take judicial notice of per Florida Statute s. 90.201, which was in error. Because it was permissive, the plaintiff needed to comply with statutory procedural notice protocols, which the plaintiff failed to do.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Judge's Order Halts Google Data Center Project in Minnesota
July 27, 2026 —
Annemarie Mannion - Engineering News-RecordConstruction of a $1-billion Google data center planned by
Ryan Cos. on 485 acres in southeastern Minnesota was expected to start in July but is now halted under a judge’s order.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Annemarie Mannion, Engineering News-RecordMs. Mannion may be contacted at
manniona@enr.com
Powering Data Centers in a Moving Regulatory Landscape: Positioning Deals Before FERC’s Next Move
April 27, 2026 —
Stephen J. Humes, Alicia M. McKnight & Andrew H. Jacobs - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogThe explosive growth of data‑center load—driven by artificial intelligence, cloud computing and the expansion of digital infrastructure across industries—has forced U.S. energy regulators into unfamiliar territory. Nowhere is this more evident than at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which is actively considering how large, concentrated loads can be powered without compromising grid reliability or shifting costs to other customers.
FERC has not yet issued a standalone rulemaking on data centers. But make no mistake, the regulatory framework is quietly and deliberately being built. For developers, hyperscalers, utilities and investors, the period before FERC finalizes its next round of decisions represents the critical window to crystallize advocacy and structure transactions in ways that anticipate regulatory change.
Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen J. Humes, Pillsbury,
Alicia M. McKnight, Pillsbury and
The Louvre Abu Dhabi’s Mega-Structure Domed Roof CompletedSkanska Found Negligent for Damages From Breakaway BargesA Game of Texas Hold’em: How Texas Stopped Wage Increases for Salaried Exempt Employees NationwideBest Lawyers® Recognizes 29 White and Williams LawyersColorado Senate Bill 13-052 Dies in CommitteeAdditional Insured is Loss Payee after Hurricane DamageFirst Circuit Broadly Interprets Exclusion in Commercial General Liability Policy Under Current Massachusetts LawThe Insurance Coverage Debate on Construction Defects ContinuesJason Feld Awarded Volunteer of the Year by Claims & Litigation Management AllianceFlorida Legislative Change Extends Completed Operations Tail for Condominium ProjectsIt’s All a Matter of [Statutory] Construction: Supreme Court Narrowly Interprets the Good Faith Dispute Exception to Prompt Payment Requirements in United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co.To Settle or Not Settle: Factors to Weigh and Practical ConsiderationsEndorsement Excludes Replacement of Undamaged Property with Matching MaterialsA Relatively Small Exception to Fraud and Contract Don’t MixMillennials Want Houses, Just Like Everybody ElseSinger Ordered to Deposition in Construction Defect CaseArizona Court of Appeals Rules Issues Were Not Covered in Construction Defect SuitReal Estate & Construction News Roundup (10/23/24) – Construction Backlog Rebounds, Real Estate Sustainability Grows, and Split Incentive Gap Remains Building Decarbonizing BarrierBillionaires and CEOs Gather for Milken in a Reeling LAOne-Upmanship by Contractors In Prevailing Wage Decision Leads to a Bad Result for All . . . PerhapsHaight Celebrates 2024 New Partner Promotions!Nevada’s Mandatory Nonbinding Arbitration Law for Civil Cases is Going Through ChangesSalt Lake City Turns Winter Olympic Bid Into Statewide Bond BoomClient Alert: Absence of a Court Reporter at a Civil Motion Hearing May Preclude Appellate ReviewLet’s Give ‘Em Sutton to Talk About: Tennessee Court Enforces Sutton DoctrineCourt Holds That Insurance Producer Cannot Be Liable for Denial of COVID-19 Business Interruption ClaimNew York Appellate Division: Second Department Contradicts First Department, Denying Insurer's Recoupment of Defense Costs for Uncovered ClaimsAI-Powered Construction Optioneering TodayState Farm Unsuccessful In Seeking Dismissal of Qui Tam CaseInsurance Policies and Indemnity Provisions Are Not the SameUnit Owners Have No Standing to Sue under Condominium Association’s PolicyEighth Circuit Rejects Retroactive Application of Construction Defect LegislationTop U.S. Counties Most at Risk for Tornado Damage in 2025New Tools, Streamlined Access: AAA’s Website Gets a Major RedesignHawaii Federal District Court Compels AppraisalCalifornia Beach Hotel to Get $185 Million Luxury RebuildQuanta Asks Judge to Block Award of $400M Long Island, NY Grid Contract to PSEGTimely and Properly Assert Affirmative Defenses and Understand Statutory Conditions PrecedentDrones, Googleplexes and HyperloopsNo Expert Testimony for You: Maryland Federal Court Deems Expert Testimony InadmissibleAmerican Council of Engineering Companies of California Selects New DirectorManufacturer of Asbestos-Free Product May Still Be Liable for Asbestos Related InjuriesPool Deck Failure Cited as Starting Point in Surfside Condo CollapseInsurance Measures Passed by 2015 Hawaii LegislatureLead Paint: The EPA’s Renovation, Repair and Painting RuleLoss Ensuing from Alleged Faulty Workmanship is CoveredTime is of the Essence, Even When the Contract Doesn’t Say SoTop Talked-About Tech at the 2023 ABC Joint Tech SummitProtecting Your Business From Liability Claims Stemming From COVID-19 ExposureHawaii Supreme Court Construes Designated Premises Endorsement In Insured's FavorBidders Shortlisted as Oroville Dam Work Schedule is SetHammer & Hand’s Top Ten Predictions for US High Performance Building in 2014Let it Shine: California Mandates Rooftop Solar for New Residential Construction 
