A Utah federal court recently held that when negotiating a pass-through settlement agreement, a contractor has a duty to disclose information to its subcontractor regarding the viability of the claims to be passed through. See Ludvik v. Vanderlande, 2023 WL 8789379 (D. Utah, Dec. 19, 2023). If it breaches that duty, the contractor may

Retainage can be tricky in Alabama, particularly on public projects. In this post, we address retainage on public projects for public owners in the state (e.g., a governmental board, commission, agency, body, authority, instrumentality, or department).

A public owner in Alabama may withhold up to 5% retainage from the prime contractor for up to 50%

Back in April we examined the court’s decision in Boldt v. Black & Veatch, which dismissed a subcontractor’s counterclaim for wrongful termination on a 60-turbine wind farm project. As you may recall, the subcontractor hired to erect the turbines alleged that it was wrongfully terminated for delays that were not its fault but were

A Minnesota federal court dismissed a tunnelling contractor’s differing site condition claim because notice of the condition was given eight days after the conditions were first observed whereas the contract required notice within three days  (see Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc. v. Bradshaw Construction Corp.). The project at issue involves installation of a

Contractors know when they bid a public job that it’s the lowest and best bidder that will ultimately come out on top. Contractors and public bodies also know that when a public body rejects the lowest bid, it needs to explain why the low bidder isn’t the best bidder. But in a recent twist, the

A Texas court has rejected a pipeline contractor’s $25 million claim for additional costs based on broad release language include in an executed change order (see Wood Group, USA v. Targa NGL Pipeline Company, LLC, No. 01-21-00542, 2023 WL 5280249 (Tex. Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2023)). The change order at issue increased the contract

Construction contacts often include provisions that provide for pre-determined or “liquidated” damages in the event of a breach. Such provisions can provide certainty to the parties as to the consequences of a breach and can simplify the task of proving up damages at trial. However, as one contractor found out recently, courts may refuse to

The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA), in the case of StructSure Projects, Inc., recently granted COVID-19-related costs to a contractor under a fixed-price contract. The key facts, holdings, and takeaways from this noteworthy case are discussed below.   

The Facts

The government awarded the contractor a fixed-price task order for design and alteration

Who said legal opinions have to be boring? Not Judge Terrence L. Michael of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, who last week issued a colorful opinion rejecting a home builder’s creative claim for breach of contract damages. Here’s what happened: 

The builder, Executive Homes, and the buyers, David and Gloria Potts