Trent Cotney’s June 2026 legal updates

By Emma Peterson. 

From Florida to California, Trent shares key regulatory and legislative information for contractors.  

As a partner at Adams and Reese law firm specializing in roofing litigation and arbitration, Trent Cotney sits at the forefront of legal and regulatory changes that are impacting contractors and other roofing professionals. And every month he shares some of the most important news through his Cotney Briefs. Here’s what he highlighted in June 2026. 

1 – Florida building permit and inspection rules 

On July 1, 2026, Florida’s CS/CS/HB 803 law will go into effect. Among many things, this law will change building permit and inspection rules. For example, it requires that a “local government that issues building permits to exempt an owner of a single-family dwelling, or the owner’s contractor, from obtaining a building permit for work valued at less than $7,500 on the owner’s property.” It also creates some exemptions for temporary residential hurricane and flood protection walls or barriers that meet specific conditions. 

What this means for contractors: Contractors operating in the state of Florida need to make sure their permitting checklists are up to date with these changes, especially in relation to small or temporary residential protection projects. 

2 – Project cost of completion case 

The case of Corotoman, Inc. v. Central West Virginia Regional Airport Authority centers around the removal of a large knoll at the end of the runway of Yeager Airport in Charleston, West Virginia. The issue arose when the Airport Authority was found to be in breach of proper removal and there was a disagreement over the cost of completion that should be awarded to Corotoman.  

The case moved up to the West Virginia Supreme Court who held that: 

(1) the gross disproportionality rule may apply in breach-of-construction-contract disputes; (2) gross disproportionality is measured using the diminution-in-value approach, which calculates the difference between the property’s value without the contracted work and its value if the work had been performed; (3) the breaching party bears the burden of invoking and proving gross disproportionality; and (4) if the breaching party fails to prove gross disproportionality, the non-breaching party’s proven measure of damages applies. 

What this means for contractors: In layman’s terms, this case sets a precedent that the cost to complete a project is the measure of damages for breach of contract, unless the cost is grossly disproportionate to the value of the property, as in Corotoman, Inc. v. Central West Virginia Regional Airport Authority, where the loss in value of property should be used as the measure of damages. 

3 – AAA’s new AI Arbitrator process 

AAA has a new AI arbitrator process that uses an AI tool to summarize submissions, organize evidence, prepare analysis and identify issues. From there, a human arbitrator reviews, revises and finalizes the decision. The switch to this process as the Initial Decision Maker (IDM) is aimed to help parties obtain faster initial decisions so they can continue performance without forfeiting a future right to later dispute resolution.  

What this means for contractors: With the switch to this process, Trent recommends including a provision related to using AAA’s AI Arbitrator process as the IDM into contracts. Here is a sample of what he suggests:  

The Parties designate the American Arbitration Association’s AI Arbitrator process as the Initial Decision Maker (“IDM”) for Claims arising out of or relating to the Contract, if available for the Claim at issue.  

The AAA AI Arbitrator process shall mean AAA’s AI-assisted dispute resolution process in which artificial intelligence assists with document review, issue identification, dispute summarization, analysis, and proposed decision preparation, subject to review and issuance by a human AAA arbitrator.  

Either Party may submit a Claim to the IDM. The Parties shall submit position statements and supporting documents in accordance with AAA’s AI Arbitrator procedures.* 

*Read the whole provision.

4 – Construction law in California  

California has long been one of the most difficult regulatory environments for contractors to operate in because of the different legal hoops contractors must jump through to build projects, maintain labor and control margins. One example of these hoops is the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) which “allows an aggrieved employee to pursue civil penalties for alleged Labor Code violations on behalf of the state.” On paper this might seem fine, but in action it turns simple wage-and-hour issues into complex representative litigation.  

Another example is California’s worker classification rules, such as AB 5. This rule in particular relates to when companies claim a worker as an independent contractor rather than an employee. The problem with AB 5 is its rigidity in relation to contract, licensing, scope, registration and independence. It is so rigid it increases risk and cost related to using independent contractors, even when working on projects that require specialty trades, project-based work and flexible staffing. 

What this means for contractors: California’s regulatory environment is well intentioned, but often in contradiction with the reality of working in the field. Contractors operating in California should ensure that they have a proactive compliance strategy that reviews everything from arbitration agreements and worker classifications to safety programs and payroll practices to avoid issues.  

Read more from Trent’s June 2026 brief.