Introduction
On June 26, 2026 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its decision in J.C. Cannistraro, LLC v. Columbia Construction Co.—a holding that sits at the intersection of Prompt Pay Act compliance and the Massachusetts Arbitration Act.[1]
Most already know that the Massachusetts Prompt Pay Act (PPA) imposes strict timing and certification requirements
Brenda Radmacher, a partner in Seyfarth’s Construction Law practice and a mediator and arbitrator serving on the American Arbitration Association’s panels, is among the contributing authors to the American Bar Association’s forthcoming guide on construction disputes: Time – The Legal Implications of Project Delay in Construction.
Drawing on three decades of experience, Radmacher authors Chapter 8, Contractor Delay Damages, offering practical insight into one of the
Artificial intelligence and advanced digital tools are no longer experimental on construction projects. In Q1 of 2026, we can already see how they are already influencing schedules, estimates, submittals, safety reporting, and day‑to‑day project documentation. As peak construction season approaches, many teams are accelerating adoption of AI to gain efficiency.
Continue Reading AI & Digital Tools on Construction Projects: Contract Risks to Address Before Peak Season
In their most recent article, Seyfarth’s Anthony LaPlaca (Construction) and Teddie Arnold (Government Contracts) team up to address the evolving legal landscape surrounding surety liability under the False Claims Act (FCA). Through a review of key judicial decisions, Anthony and Teddie highlight how government whistleblowers have managed to sustain fraud claims against sureties, emphasizing the
Last week, Seyfarth’s Brenda Radmacher presented at West Coast Casualty’s 31st Annual Construction Defects Conference. Along with other industry leaders in the construction industry, Brenda provided professional tips on how to best manage risk, avoid, and mitigate construction disputes. The key takeaways include:
Continue Reading Seyfarth’s Brenda Radmacher Presents at Construction Defect and Insurance Conference
Anthony LaPlaca, Construction partner in Seyfarth’s Boston office, was chosen as a Go-To Construction Lawyer by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly (MLW) for 2025, recognizing him as one of “the top construction lawyers across the commonwealth.”
In LaPlaca’s profile, MLW writes:
“LaPlaca has spent his entire career litigating complex construction and design disputes across the country.
Seyfarth’s Anthony LaPlaca, Teddie Arnold, and Jason Smith recently published the 2025 annual update of the Thomson Reuters state law survey of construction laws and customs for the District of Columbia. This survey contains questions and answers about frequently asked questions concerning construction projects governed by D.C. law, including prompt pay and retainage requirements, stop
This post has been cross-posted from Seyfarth’s Workplace Class Action Blog.
By: Anthony LaPlaca, Dawn Solowey, Andrew Scroggins & Adrienne Lee
Seyfarth Synopsis: In June 2024, Seyfarth published a blog article warning construction industry employers of recent anti-harassment guidelines issued by the EEOC. We predicted that the EEOC has “put the construction
In Cell-Crete Corp. v. Fed. Ins. Co., a California court awarded a surety attorneys’ fees and costs that its principal incurred defending the surety against a claim on a public-works payment bond.[1] This is good news for sureties and their principals, who commonly defend sureties against such claims pursuant to a general indemnity agreements (“GIA”).
Granite Construction Company (“Granite”) entered into a contract with the County of Riverside to complete a roadway project (“Project”). Granite subcontracted with Cell-Crete Corporation (“Cell-Crete”) for installation of light weight concrete at the Project. Granite obtained a payment bond (the “Bond”) from Federal Insurance Company (“Federal”) pursuant to the California Little Miller Act,[2] which requires payment bonds for any public project in excess of $25,000. As Granite’s surety, Federal required that Granite sign a GIA obligating it to defend, indemnify, and hold Federal harmless against claims made against the Bond.
Continue Reading California Court Confirms Surety’s Right to Recover Attorney Fees and Costs Incurred by Its Principal
The Supreme Court on May 23, 2022, in its decision in Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., rejected the “arbitration specific waiver rule demanding a showing of prejudice” to the party opposing the petition to enforce the arbitration agreement. That rule had been followed for decades by nine Circuits.[1] Post Morgan, the analysis reverts to the standard contract waiver analysis “focus[ing] on the actions of the person who held the right; … [rather than] the effects of those actions on the opposing party.”[2] Although the case is an employment matter, the new rule applies whenever a party seeks to stay litigation and send the matter to arbitration under Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act in essentially all commercial litigation contexts.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Rejects Prejudice Element of Waiver Analysis When Enforcing Agreements to Arbitrate