The court in AECOM v. Flatiron was back at it last week with rulings on the parties’ post-trial motions. As you may recall, the case was tried to a jury earlier this year. The jury returned a verdict for AECOM in the amount of $5 million. Flatiron’s modified total cost counterclaim in the amount of
John Mark Goodman
John Mark Goodman has been with Bradley his entire legal career as a member of Bradley’s Litigation and Construction practice groups. He has an engineering degree from Georgia Tech and a law degree from Virginia. John Mark has had the privilege of representing clients throughout the U.S. and abroad in a wide variety of litigation and arbitration matters, including construction disputes, products liability claims, tax appeals, breach of contract/warranty, patent disputes, trade secret theft, and general commercial litigation.
United States Ordered to Pay Breach of Contract Damages to Nuclear Operator in Spent Fuel Dispute
The Federal Court of Claims recently ruled in favor of the operator of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in its long-running dispute with the United States over the disposal of spent nuclear fuel (NorthStar Vermont Yankee, LLC v. United States, No. 18-1209C, 2024 WL 3563239 (Fed. Cl. July 29, 2024)). Pursuant to a statutory…
Signature Lines Matter: When a Contract Amendment Is Not Really an Amendment
Construction law is largely a matter of contract law. Yes, there are federal and state statutes that deal with construction issues and, yes, construction cases sometimes involve tort claims, but more often than not, construction disputes revolve around the parties’ contract. What constitutes the parties’ contract is frequently undisputed. As one developer learned last week, that is…
Mechanics Lien Upheld Despite Lack of Notice to Senior Construction Lender
In an unpublished opinion, a California appeals court has upheld a subcontractor’s mechanics lien claim despite the subcontractor’s failure to strictly follow the procedural requirements set forth in the mechanics lien statute (see Ram Concrete v. Montecito, 2024 WL 1879352 (Cal. Ct. Appeal)). In Ram Concrete, the trial court entered judgment for the…
Court Confirms Jury Verdict for AECOM in I-70 Construction Dispute with FlatIron
We previously blogged about the hotly contested dispute between AECOM and FlatIron involving the I-70 construction project outside of Denver. After an 18-day trial, the jury returned a verdict last month for plaintiff AECOM on its breach of contract claim. Interestingly, the size of the jury’s verdict, roughly $5 million, was consistent with FlatIron’s attempted…
Second Circuit: No-Damages-For-Delay Clause Bars Claim
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently applied a no-damages-for-delay provision to affirm the dismissal of a demolition contractor’s breach of contract claims. The project involved reconstructing and raising the Bayonne Bridge between Staten Island and New Jersey. The Port Authority awarded the general contract on the $1.29 billion project to the joint venture Skanska…
California Court Sends Solar Contractor’s Bond Claims to Arbitration
A California federal court ruled last week that a surety can enforce an arbitration clause in a contract to which it is not a party. The dispute involves performance and payment bond claims brought by solar contractor Swinerton Builders, Inc. Swinerton brought the claims in California federal court against Argonaut Insurance, the surety of a…
Breach vs. Default — What’s the difference?
The words breach and default are often used interchangeably to indicate that somebody hasn’t done what they were legally required to do. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, the words do appear somewhat interchangeable. Black’s defines breach as “a violation or infraction of a law, obligation, or agreement, especially of an official duty or a legal…
Limitation of Damages Clause in Contract Held Inapplicable to Subcontractor’s Change Order Claim
Construction contracts often include clauses that purport to limit the liability of one or both parties. This includes clauses that completely prohibit any claims for certain types of damages such as lost profits and other consequential damages, extended overhead or other “delay” damages, and exemplary/punitive damages. Contracting parties may also include clauses that purport to cap liability…
The Risk of Fighting on Two Fronts: Court Admits Evidence of General Contractor’s Claims Against Other Parties
The court in AECOM v. Flatiron is back at it issuing additional evidentiary rulings as the parties head to trial later this month. These latest rulings highlight the risk of seeking the same damages from multiple parties, sometimes referred to as “fighting on two fronts.” As you may recall, AECOM v. Flatiron involves claims by…