A recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida demonstrates how facts supported by documents generated during the project can be vital to prime contractor/subcontractor disputes. In Berkley Ins. Co. v. Suffolk Constr. Co., No. 19-23059-CV, 2024 WL 3631226 (S.D. Fla. July 22, 2024), following a two-week bench trial
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
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
I have practiced law for 40 years with the vast majority as a “construction” lawyer. I have seen great… and bad… construction lawyering, both when representing a party and when serving over 300 times as a mediator or arbitrator in construction disputes. To be clear, I have made my share of mistakes. I learned from
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
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
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 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
Recently, in United States v. Osage Wind, LLC, the Northern District of Oklahoma awarded permanent injunctive relief in favor of the Osage Nation and the United States against wind turbine farm developers in the form of ejectment of the wind farm for continuing trespass. A trial to assess the amount of monetary damages due
A Colorado federal court will allow a contractor to prove up more than $250 million in damages using the modified total cost method (see AECOM Technical Services v. Flatiron AECOM, LLC, Case No. 19-CV-2811, 2024 WL 22640 (D. Co. Jan. 2, 2024)). The AECOM v. Flatiron case involves a Colorado DOT project to add