[email protected]  |  866.303.5868

February 2026 |  Issue 10

Illinois Rooftop Safety for First Responders Act: New Compliance Issues for Roofers

Illinois’ Rooftop Safety for First Responders Act, commonly referred to as the Drew Price Act, is now in effect (effective January 1, 2026) after being signed into law as Public Act 104-0121 on August 1, 2025. The law is aimed at a specific but high-risk scenario: first responders operating in low visibility on low-slope roofs where an unguarded roof edge, light well, shaft, or opening can create a catastrophic fall hazard.

From a construction and reroofing perspective, the Act is important because it is not limited to brand-new buildings. It applies to all existing buildings, new construction, new roofs, roof replacements, and renovation projects that increase the area of a home or business by more than 50%. In other words, contractors can encounter this in retrofit and replacement work, precisely where scope assumptions and disputes tend to arise.

Substantively, the Act creates two primary compliance buckets for low-sloped roofs (defined as less than a 2:12 slope). First, low-sloped roof edges adjoining a shaft or an enclosed court must be protected by a parapet, extended masonry, or guard (or a combination) that meets IBC Section 1015 requirements. Second, skylights and other openings in the plane of a low-sloped roof (that are not otherwise required by law to remain open and unobstructed) must be addressed in one of two ways: either (A) glazed with wired glass, plain glass, glass block, or polycarbonate plastic designed and constructed to withstand a minimum dynamic load test of at least 400 pounds, or (B) protected with a compliant parapet/guard/extended masonry meeting IBC 1015.

The Act also directs municipalities starting no later than January 1, 2027, and every two years thereafter to conduct surveys of buildings with these roof openings and to share that information with local police and fire departments (and, in counties over 1,000,000 population, to store the results in computer-aided dispatch systems). While that survey piece is not a contractor mandate, it reinforces the operational reality that roof conditions and openings are a documented life-safety issue.

 Takeaway

This is a classic scope vs. code compliance issue that should be addressed up front in your contract. Consider adding provisions that (1) require the owner/design team to disclose known roof shafts/courts/skylights/openings and any prior survey information, (2) state clearly whether rooftop guards/parapets/opening protection are included or excluded from base scope, (3) treat newly discovered openings or required protective measures as a change order with schedule relief, and (4) confirm that the contractor is not warranting preexisting roof code deficiencies unless expressly included in the scope and price. That language won’t eliminate disputes, but it will materially improve your position when the project manual is silent and the expectation shifts midstream.

Case Law Update

Damages Don’t Age Like Wine

Vuletic Group, LLC v. Malkin, No. 4D2024-1589, 2025 WL 1944045 (Fla. 4th DCA July 16, 2025) (rehearing denied Sept. 9, 2025).

Facts

In 2018, Vuletic Group, LLC (“Vuletic”), a contractor, entered into a home remodeling contract with Spencer and Fran Malkin (the “homeowners”). The homeowners terminated the contract on November 25, 2019. Vuletic sued the homeowners for nonpayment; in response, the homeowners filed a counterclaim alleging breach of contract and construction defects, asserting that Vuletic failed to supervise and coordinate subcontractors, resulting in deficiencies. At a bench trial in early 2023, the homeowners introduced an expert’s estimate of the “cost to remedy” the defects based on prices as of September 7, 2022, and the trial court awarded approximately $499,250 in damages including prejudgment interest.

Holding

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed. The appellate court held that damages for a breach of contract including construction defect claims must be measured as of the date of the breach, not based on cost increases occurring years later. Because the homeowners failed to present any evidence of damages measured as of the breach date (at the latest November 25, 2019), they did not meet their burden of proof. As a result, the court directed the trial court to enter judgment in favor of Vuletic rather than remanding for a new damages hearing.

 Takeaway

Vuletic Group v. Malkin reinforces a fundamental construction law principle: the non-breaching party must prove damages measured at the date of the breach even where expert reports and cost evidence are introduced based on later pricing. An award calculated using later-date cost figures is insufficient and cannot stand. Moreover, courts will not allow a “second bite at the apple” to fix deficient damages evidence by remanding for a new hearing; failure to satisfy the date-of-breach requirement is fatal to the claim.

Contract Provision of the Month

Context: Construction materials are typically ordered based on estimated quantities that account for waste factors, cutting loss, breakage, manufacturer packaging requirements, field conditions, and contingency planning necessary to complete the work efficiently and without delay. In many instances, manufacturers require materials to be purchased in fixed bundle, pallet, or roll quantities that exceed the precise amount ultimately installed. In addition, contractors must often order surplus materials to account for unforeseen conditions, sequencing changes, weather impacts, or to ensure color and material consistency across the project.

As a result, it is common and industry-standard for a project to conclude with unused or excess materials that were reasonably procured for the work but not incorporated into the finished construction. Disputes can arise when owners assume that payment for the project conveys ownership of all materials ordered, regardless of whether those materials were installed. This provision is intended to clarify ownership expectations, avoid post-completion disputes, and reflect standard construction procurement practices by confirming that surplus or unused materials remain the property of the contractor unless expressly agreed otherwise in writing.

Sample provision:

Excess Materials.

Unless otherwise expressly stated in writing, any materials purchased, delivered to the Project, or stored off-site for the Work that are not incorporated into the completed Work (“Excess Materials”) shall remain the sole property of the Contractor. The Owner acknowledges that quantities are estimated and may exceed actual installation requirements, and the Contractor shall have no obligation to credit, return, or transfer ownership of any Excess Materials not incorporated into the Work. Contractor is not a licensed architect or professional engineer and does not provide architectural or engineering services. Any plans, specifications, drawings, details, recommendations, shop drawings, or suggestions provided by Contractor are offered solely for the purpose of facilitating construction and are not intended as professional design services. Responsibility for the adequacy, accuracy, and code compliance of all design documents rests exclusively with the project owner and/or the owner’s licensed design professionals. Contractor shall not be responsible for errors, omissions, or deficiencies in the plans, specifications, or other design documents provided to Contractor.

One of the most common refrains contractors offer when disputes arise is also one of the least effective: “we’ve always done it this way.” For decades, industry custom, informal practices, and unwritten understandings carried real weight in resolving disagreements. In 2026, that is no longer the case. Courts, owners, insurers, and regulators are increasingly focused on what is written, documented, and expressly allocated in the contract, not what has historically been done on prior projects or accepted in the field.

This shift is being driven by a convergence of forces that contractors can no longer afford to ignore. Project delivery methods have grown more complex, risk has been pushed downstream more aggressively, and contracts are now drafted with surgical precision. Owners and design professionals routinely embed risk-shifting provisions deep in project manuals, specifications, and exhibits, often in ways that conflict with long-standing trade practices. When disputes arise, decision-makers are far less interested in how work has traditionally been performed and far more concerned with whether the contractor complied with the specific language of the agreement.

Courts have reinforced this trend by repeatedly rejecting arguments based on industry custom when those practices are not clearly incorporated into the contract. Judges are wary of allowing “custom and practice” to override negotiated terms, particularly where sophisticated parties are involved. In many recent disputes, contractors have discovered that what they viewed as standard practice was either restricted, disclaimed, or reallocated by contract language they did not fully appreciate at the outset of the job.

This problem is especially acute in areas such as material procurement, subcontracting, scheduling, and temporary protection. Contractors may reasonably order excess materials to account for waste, manufacturer packaging requirements, or unforeseen field conditions, only to face owner demands for credits or claims of conversion at project closeout. Others rely on long-standing practices related to temporary tie-ins, nightly protection, or sequencing with adjacent trades, only to find that the contract silently imposes a higher standard or shifts responsibility in a way that eliminates those assumptions. In each of these scenarios, the argument that “this is how it’s always been done” carries little weight against clear written language.

Regulatory and enforcement pressures have further eroded reliance on informal practices. Immigration enforcement, worker classification scrutiny, and safety compliance expectations have intensified, leaving little room for legacy approaches that were once tolerated but are now viewed as noncompliant. Contractors who continue to rely on unwritten norms face heightened exposure not only in private disputes, but also in audits and enforcement actions.

Technology has also played a role. With the widespread use of digital project management platforms, daily reports, and photographic documentation, parties can now reconstruct projects with a level of detail that was previously unavailable. This makes it harder to rely on generalized claims about how work is “normally” performed and easier for opposing parties to point to specific deviations from contractual requirements. In this environment, vague appeals to tradition are no match for timestamped records and explicit contract provisions.

 Takeaway

The takeaway for contractors is not that experience and industry knowledge no longer matter, but that they must be translated into the contract itself. If a practice is essential to how a contractor prices, schedules, or performs the work, it must be clearly stated, reserved, or clarified in writing. Assumptions that were once safe to make are now potential liabilities. The cost of failing to adapt is often borne not at bid time, but months or years later in the form of claims, disputes, and unrecoverable losses.

In 2026, successful contractors are those who recognize that the legal landscape has changed. The winning argument is no longer “we’ve always done it this way,” but “the contract says this is how it will be done.” Those who align their contracts with their operational realities are far better positioned to manage risk, protect margins, and avoid disputes in an increasingly unforgiving environment.

Upcoming Speaking Engagements & Events

• Roofing Contractor, State of the Industry Webinar, February 18, 2026