Donât Hire Me! (Principle Is Expensive, and Lawsuits Based on Principle Are Even More Expensive)
February 10, 2026 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North CarolinaI spend a lot of time trying to convince my clients to NOT hire me. Iâm not crazyâlet me explain. Litigation is costly. Very costly. And it is time consuming. Donât get me wrongâI will go to Court and fight just as hard as you want me to, but I want you to know what you are facing before you go down that road.
Now, obviously, if you are the one that is being sued, you have no choice but to defend yourself and your Firm. But if you are considering suing someone else, think long and hard about it before you pull the trigger. There are ways to reduce cost, time, and risk: for example, pre-suit or early mediation, or agreeing to arbitration in lieu of trial. But I always want my clients to know that real law is not like Law & Order. Things take time. A trial is often a year or more away from when you first file the lawsuit. Make your decisions on not just your heart, but your economic brain as well.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLCMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
Ball Janik LLP Elevates Construction Litigation Attorneys Keegan A. Berry and Nicholas B. Vargo to Partner
February 02, 2026 —
Ball Janik LLPOrlando, FL â January 28, 2026 â
Ball Janik LLP is pleased to announce the elevation of
Keegan A. Berry and
Nicholas B. Vargo to Partner, effective 2026. Both attorneys are dedicated to their clients and have provided significant contributions to the firm's Construction Defect and Litigation practice.
"Keegan and Nicholas exemplify the excellence and client-focused approach that define Ball Janik LLP," said James C. Prichard, Managing Partner of Ball Janik LLP. "Their elevation to Partner reflects not only their exceptional legal skills and dedication to our clients but also their commitment to advancing the firm's mission. We are proud to recognize their achievements and look forward to their continued leadership."
Berry is based in Ball Janik LLP's Orlando office and is a Florida Bar Board Certified Specialist in Construction Law. Throughout his career, Berry has focused on complex litigation and resolving matters through arbitration, alternative dispute resolution, and trial, with extensive experience both prosecuting and defending construction claims on behalf of owners, contractors, and manufacturers. His practice also encompasses complex commercial and general litigation, including business torts, professional liability, products liability, and general liability.
"I'm honored to continue serving Florida's business and property owner communities as a partner at Ball Janik, leveraging my experience to deliver efficient, results-driven solutions in even the most complex construction disputes," said Berry.
Vargo is based in Ball Janik LLP's Tampa office and is a Florida Bar Board Certified Specialist in Construction Law. He focuses on Construction Litigation, representing residential and commercial property owners in construction defect litigation. Vargo has spent most of his career in construction defect law with Ball Janik and has been instrumental in growing Ball Janik's presence in Florida's west coast.
"Becoming a partner at Ball Janik is both a privilege and a responsibility, and I look forward to continuing to advocate fiercely for our clients while holding accountable those who attempt to evade their obligations," said Vargo.
About Ball Janik LLP
Ball Janik LLP is a Florida-based law firm offering construction defect, construction law, insurance recovery, and commercial litigation counsel, to its local and national clients. The firm was founded in 1982 and has expanded its capabilities, professionals, and geographic footprint. What started as a small firm focused on real property, land use, and litigation (known then as Ball Janik & Novack) has grown to a team of 50-plus attorneys and paralegals in 5 offices in Florida, with centuries of combined experience and capabilities. The firm has been recognized by Chambers USA, U.S. News & World Report and Best LawyersŸ, The Best Lawyers in America©, and Corporate International. Read more here: https://www.balljanik.com/.
Elliott Backed Venture Sues Lloyds Over Avant Cladding, Times Reports
February 17, 2026 —
Eamon Farhat - BloombergElliott Investment Management and British housing tycoon Jeff Fairburn, joint-venture partners in UK homebuilder
Avant Homes Group, are suing
Lloyds Banking Group Plc over who should pay to fix properties that fail to meet post-Grenfell fire-safety standards, the Times reported.
Avant, which faces remediation costs of at least ÂŁ107 million ($146 million) for potentially dangerous cladding, argues that Lloyds should shoulder part of the bill because most of the developments were built before 2014, when the homebuilder was under the bankâs ownership, the Times reported.
Cladding has become a contentious issue in the UK following the Grenfell Tower fire in June 2017, in which dozens died after flames spread rapidly through flammable exterior cladding on the West London high-rise, laying bare deep failures in Britainâs building safety regulations.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eamon Farhat, Bloomberg
Lewis Brisbois Ranked Tier 1 Nationally for Seven Practice Areas in 2026 Best Law Firms
January 06, 2026 —
Lewis Brisbois NewsroomNovember 6, 2025) - Lewis Brisbois has been ranked Tier 1 nationally by Best Lawyers for 'Appellate Practice,' 'Commercial Litigation,' âInsurance Law,â 'Litigation - Construction,' âLitigation - Labor and Employment,â âMass Tort Litigation / Class Actions â Defendants,â and âTransportation Law,â as well as ranking Tier 1 in an array of practice areas across 27 metro regions in its 2026 edition of Best Law FirmsÂź.
In addition to Lewis Brisbois' national rankings, the firm was also ranked Tier 1 in the following regional categories:
Akron
- Bet-the-Company Litigation
- Commercial Litigation
- Tax Law
- Trusts and Estates
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
Donât Ignore Prejudgment Interest
February 02, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen it comes to contracts, there may be a clause that provides that untimely payments shall bear interest at a particular rate. Or it may be the statutory rate. That clause will come into play when determining prejudgment interest. In ANY dispute, prejudgment interest can be an important damages component that accrues from the date of the loss. Donât ignore prejudgment interest.
The Fourth District of Florida, in a construction dispute, maintained:
â[I]f a plaintiff establishes that he sustained out-of-pocket loss, prejudgment interest must be awarded from the date of the loss. The trial court has no discretion regarding awarding prejudgment interest and must do so applying the statutory rate of interest in effect at the time the interest accrues.â
Bensusan v. Design Engineering Group, LLC, 2025 WL 3466367 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025) (citation omitted).
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
How to Properly Fill Out and Use the Conditional Waiver and Release on Progress Payment Form Used in California Construction
December 15, 2025 —
William L. Porter - Porter Law GroupThis is the first article in a series of four articles discussing how to properly fill out the four California construction releases described in California Civil Code 8132 â 8138.
Let me start by noting that in addition to practicing construction law for more than 35 years, I chaired the committee of California construction attorneys who revised those sections of the California Civil Code dealing with this release form and many other construction forms as part of Senate Bill 189 in 2010. I also wrote the first version of this release form and made it free to the public well before the new law took effect in 2012. With this background, let me note a few things about the Conditional Waiver and Release on Progress Payment form to help you avoid mistakes that might prevent you from achieving the intended effect or the form or releasing claim rights to a greater extent than you intend.
At the end of this article is a copy of the form itself which includes numbers coinciding with the instructions I will give below. A live electronically fillable version of the form is available on our firmâs website (www.porterlaw.com) under the âFormsâ section. It is free and you can fill it out on your screen before printing it out and signing it.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Porter, Porter Law GroupMr. Porter may be contacted at
bporter@porterlaw.com
Application of Ordinance and Law Coverage in Property Insurance Policy and Twenty-Five Percent Rule
December 08, 2025 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent case involved a homeownerâs all-risk property insurance policy with ordinance and law coverage. This ordinance and law coverage required the carrier âto cover costs that the [insureds] incur as a result of any ordinance that requires them to replace âthe portion of the undamaged part of a covered building or other structure necessary to complete the remodeling, repair or replacement of that part of the covered building or other structure damaged by a Peril Insured Against.â Weston v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 50 Fla.L.Weekly D2307a (Fla. 2d DCA 2025). The property insurance policy required the insurer to pay the actual cash value of the loss, minus any deductible, and âany remaining amounts necessary to perform such repairs as work is performed and expenses are incurred.â Id.
Here, the insureds sustained roof damage from a storm. The insureds had an expert that opined, with a reasonable degree of certainty, that the entire roof needed to be replaced because â[t]here was damage to more than twenty-five percent of the roof, and the Florida Building Code provided that if more than twenty-five percent of the roof was damaged, then the entire roof should be replaced.â Weston, supra. The insureds also had an expert that testified to an estimate- the replacement cost of the damage as well as the actual cash value of that damage.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
When Rule 702 Motions Fail: A Close Look at AECOM v. Flatiron
February 02, 2026 —
Olivia Barden - Colorado Construction Litigation BlogIn AECOM Tech. Servs., Inc. v. Flatiron | AECOM, LLC, 2024 WL 22640 (D. Colo. 2024), the United States District Court for the District of Colorado addressed when expert testimony is not subject to be limited or excluded pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
Background
In 2015, AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (âAECOMâ) and Flatiron | AECOM, LLC (âFlatironâ) entered into an agreement, in which they agreed to work together to assemble a design/build team for the purposes of submitting a proposal to the Colorado Department of Transportationâs (âCDOTâ) construction project known as C-470 Tolled Express Lanes Segment 1 Design-Build Project (the âProjectâ). AECOM provided the design and engineering services, and Flatiron submitted the proposal to CDOT. On or about June 16, 2016, CDOT awarded Flatiron the Project. Flatiron later claimed that AECOMâs design failed to follow basic engineering and project requirements.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC