INTRODUCTION

Latent construction defects can surface years after construction ends. Every defect is different, but they all raise the same question: who is responsible? This is a simple question with no simple answer, and warranty disputes can lead to huge losses for owners and contractors alike: owners are forced to pursue warranty claims and risk incurring costs of correction that should have been covered, while contractors bear the risk of “call back” repair work for which they may not be responsible. Both parties have multiple tools at their disposal to clarify their obligations and allocate responsibilities, but many (if not most) construction contracts fail to achieve the appropriate balancing of the risks each party should properly take on.

The Trump administration is expected to call on major U.S. technology companies and data center developers to voluntarily commit to a compact designed to ensure power-needy data centers do not raise household electricity prices or undermine grid reliability.[1] The initiative comes amid a nationwide surge in energy demand, driven largely by the rapid proliferation of data centers that power the artificial intelligence (AI) boom.[2] Although the compact would be voluntary and details on monitoring or enforcement remain limited, it signals a clear expectation from federal policymakers that large technology firms “pay their own way” for the incremental costs their facilities impose on the grid.

Register Here
Wednesday, February 18 • 1:00 – 2:30 p.m. ET

Jamey Collidge will present as part of an American Bar Association webinar panel “Beyond Contract Compliance: Exploring the Professional Standard of Care and Performance Accountability for Construction Managers” alongside Andrew Drobnis and Patrick Jaroski of Ankura and Ethan Tiegler of Consigli Construction Co. The program will take place on Wednesday, February 18, from 1:00 pm – 2:30 p.m. ET.

On December 19, 2025, Governor Kathy Hochul signed Senate Bill S5655 further amending New York’s Prompt Payment Act to render void any provision in a private construction contract exceeding $150,000 that requires retainage of more than 5% of the contract sum.[1]

Eastern District of Pennsylvania Decision Highlights Critical Contract Drafting Issues

A recent federal court decision is an important reminder for construction industry professionals about the precise language needed to make mediation a mandatory step before litigation. On November 18, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled in Healy Long & Jevin, Inc. v. CQSA Construction, LLC that a dispute resolution clause failed to create a binding condition precedent to litigation, despite the general contractor’s arguments to the contrary.

This article was originally published on December 15, 2025 on Law360 and is republished here with permission.

For years, arbitration users have sent a consistent message: They want faster, more predictable, and more cost-effective processes without sacrificing quality and fairness.

The American Arbitration Association–International Centre for Dispute Resolution’s announcement and rollout of an artificial intelligence arbitrator for two-party, documents-only construction disputes this September marks a meaningful response to that market demand.[1]

Introduction

On October 23, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided Yoder v. McCarthy Const. Inc.,[1] addressing statutory employer immunity in the context of a construction project under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act.[2] The court’s decision reaffirmed longstanding precedent that general contractors may claim statutory employer immunity against tort claims initiated by a subcontractor employee, irrespective of whether they actually pay workers’ compensation benefits to an injured subcontractor employee.

A Practice Note outlining key procedural and strategic considerations for a party defending a construction arbitration. This Note addresses the crucial initial steps a respondent should take on receiving a demand for arbitration, including reviewing the arbitration agreement for potential jurisdictional challenges and assessing the procedural framework established by the relevant institutional rules, such as those of the American Arbitration Association (AAA), JAMS, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), or the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR). It explores important tactical decisions, such as whether to file a detailed answering statement, assert counterclaims, or seek joinder of third parties or consolidation with other proceedings. This Note also provides guidance on developing defenses, managing pre-hearing procedures like disclosure and dispositive motions, and evaluating the use of expedited arbitration. It examines various hearing strategies designed to streamline proceedings and effectively present a defense, including the use of a chess clock, witness conferencing (hot tubbing), and different approaches to expert testimony.

The explosive growth of artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming U.S. data center construction, creating new opportunities and challenges across the construction, energy, and technology sectors. Demand for digital infrastructure is surging, requiring massive amounts of energy, larger facilities, and driving record-breaking competition amid resource constraints.[1]