Not according to a decision from a federal court in Ohio. The case involves a landscaping project at a hillside home in Cincinnati. The property overlooks the Ohio River, but like many projects that become cases, it ended up in the ditch. Dissatisfied with the progress of the work, the owner told her neighbors that
Here at Bradley we frequently represent clients pursuing or opposing claims for lost productivity on construction jobs. The gist of those claims is that something happened which decreased productivity and thereby increased costs. That something can be just about anything. Differing site conditions. Unreasonable or conflicting instructions. A global pandemic. Lost productivity claims seek to reallocate costs
An Illinois federal court ruled in favor of steel subcontractor Nucor in its contract dispute with Direct Steel. The project involved the construction of pre-engineering metal buildings for the Army Corps of Engineers. The general contractor, Direct Steel, subcontracted with Nucor for the supply of steel materials. The contract included a “Must Ship By Date” of May 29
In Appeal of – JE Dunn Construction Co., the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals considered and denied the government’s post-hearing motion to dismiss JE Dunn’s complaint for failure to submit sums certain for each of its three claims to the contracting officer. JE Dunn filed its appeal in January 2022 seeking damages related
All breaches are not created equal. A minor, technical breach may be deemed “immaterial.” Other breaches – so-called “material” breaches — deprive the non-breaching party of something important or essential to the purpose of the contract. Whether a breach is material or immaterial is normally a question for the finder of fact. The answer determines what remedy
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