Traub Lieberman Recognized in the 2026 Edition of Chambers USA
June 29, 2026 —
Traub LiebermanIn the 2026 edition of Chambers USA, Traub Lieberman has been awarded rankings in the following categories:
Illinois – Insurance: Dispute Resolution: Insurer
In the Chambers research, clients noted: "The team are technically very strong, responsive, and on top of their cases."
Florida – Insurance: Dispute Resolution: Insurer
In the Chambers research, clients noted: "Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry distinguishes itself through a combination of deep subject-matter expertise, responsiveness, and practical risk-management orientation." Commenters went on to say: “The team has deep knowledge of Florida property insurance statutes, regulations and case law, enabling effective handling of disputes, appeals and third-party litigation."
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman
EPA Steps Back, Arizona Moves Forward
May 12, 2026 —
Patrick J. Paul, John Habib & Sukhmani K. Singh - Snell & WilmerIn a significant development for Arizona’s business community and environmental policymakers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has paused its planned reclassification of Maricopa County from “Moderate” to “Serious” ozone nonattainment status pursuant to the Clean Air Act’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
This decision marks a shift in federal air policy — one that recognizes the unique challenges faced by regions like metro Phoenix, where environmental conditions beyond local control are often key contributors to air quality readings.
The EPA’s move follows a series of meetings between EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, Arizona elected officials, and business and civic leaders, including a recent roundtable in Phoenix convened by U.S. Senator Mark Kelly. In announcing the pause, Zeldin acknowledged the need for flexibility and fairness in the application of Clean Air Act standards, especially when emissions from other states, nations, and natural events significantly influence local air quality.
Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick J. Paul, Snell & Wilmer,
John Habib, Snell & Wilmer and
Sukhmani K. Singh, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Paul may be contacted at ppaul@swlaw.com
Mr. Habib may be contacted at jhabib@swlaw.com
Ms. Singh may be contacted at ssingh@swlaw.com
Read the full story...
Congratulations to BWB&O’s 2027 Southern California Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Honorees!
September 08, 2026 —
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 2027 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.
Associates
Kevin Moore,
Sukayna Jaidi, and
Andrew Mathews are also being recognized as 2027 Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars.
Our team is being honored for their distinguished service and dedication in Family Law, Civil, Business, Construction, and Personal Injury Litigation.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara, LLP
Arizona Supreme Court Clarifies Parties’ Post-Default Conduct Cannot Validate Void Default Orders
August 24, 2026 —
Joseph Kanefield, Ryan P. Hogan & Lilly M. Geiler - Snell & WilmerAfter filing a lawsuit, the first step is always serving process on the opposing party. While that preliminary step sounds basic enough, in McMahan v. Grasshopper, the Arizona Supreme Court recently provided a helpful refresher on the nuances of the service requirement and its importance in litigation for plaintiffs and defendants alike.1
Background
McMahan arose from a hit-and-run where a tractor-trailer collided with safety barricades and injured a construction worker. The construction worker sued the tractor-trailer company, and he attempted to serve the company by leaving a copy of the complaint with the assistant to the company’s statutory agent who forwarded the complaint to the company. The assistant, however, was not authorized to accept service on the company’s behalf. Before the company appeared in the action, the construction worker successfully obtained an entry of default.
Reprinted courtesy of
Joseph Kanefield, Snell & Wilmer,
Ryan P. Hogan, Snell & Wilmer and
Lilly M. Geiler, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Kanefield may be contacted at jkanefield@swlaw.com
Mr. Hogan may be contacted at rhogan@swlaw.com
Ms. Geiler may be contacted at lgeiler@swlaw.com
Read the full story...
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.
California Poised for the Most Significant Residential Construction Defect Reforms in Decades
September 01, 2026 —
Thomas D. Fama & Andrew J. Mallon - Wood Smith Henning BermanThe California Legislature is considering legislation that would dramatically alter the landscape of residential construction defect litigation. Assembly Bill 1903, currently pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee, proposes extensive amendments to California's Right to Repair Act (Civil Code sections 895-945.5) that would substantially strengthen procedural protections for builders while narrowing the scope of recoverable construction defect claims.
If enacted, the legislation would affect virtually every stage of a construction defect dispute- from the initial notice of claim through litigation and settlement- and would introduce an entirely new certification process for newly constructed condominium projects. This article details some of the most significant proposed changes.
Higher Burden for Construction Defect Plaintiffs
Perhaps the most consequential change is the bill's modification of the proof required to establish liability. current law generally requires a claimant to demonstrate the residence fails to satisfy one of the statutory performance standards established under the Right to Repair Act. AB1903 would instead require claimants to establish three separate elements:
- A violation of an applicable statutory performance standard;
- The violation caused appreciable, present, non-speculative physical damage to another building component; and
- The violation resulted from the original construction.
Reprinted courtesy of
Thomas D. Fama, Wood Smith Henning Berman and
Andrew J. Mallon, Wood Smith Henning Berman
Mr. Fama may be contacted at tfama@wshblaw.com
Mr. Mallon may be contacted at amallon@wshblaw.com
Read the full story...
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.
Achieving Sustainability Through Design-Build Delivery: Part I – An Overview
September 21, 2026 —
Joshua M. Pruett, Jennifer L. Harris & Tiffany A. Harrod - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.This article was written for the AGC’s Law in Brief and first appeared here.
Sustainability is no longer optional. What was once a matter of public policy or corporate preference has become a regulatory mandate and is reshaping how construction projects are designed, built, and operated. This mandate is not solely figurative. Rather, states have started to follow Europe’s lead by beginning to codify sustainability requirements into regulations and law. California led the charge by adding mandatory embodied-carbon emissions regulations into CALGreen, and other states, such as New York, have introduced bills to implement similar requirements. Owners, designers, and builders must now treat sustainability not as aspirational, but as a clearly defined contract issue from the outset, particularly where the project is expected to achieve a third-party rating, meet energy or resiliency targets, qualify for incentives, or comply with evolving green building codes.
In the federal public sector, construction contracts include a layered compliance framework—executive order-inspired policy, FAR-mandated clauses, and enduring statutory requirements—requiring contractors to integrate sustainability into design, material selection, and lifecycle management. Staying ahead means aligning with regulatory standards, conducting life-cycle cost analyses, and embedding sustainability into every procurement and construction decision.
Reprinted courtesy of
Joshua M. Pruett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.,
Jennifer L. Harris, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Tiffany A. Harrod, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Pruett may be contacted at jpruett@pecklaw.com
Ms. Harris may be contacted at jharris@pecklaw.com
Ms. Harrod may be contacted at tharrod@pecklaw.com
Read the full story...
