A recent decision from the U. S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, is a MUST READ for any lawyer or construction executive involved with joint ventures (“JV’s”). This decision provides a rare, detailed look into the contentious dynamics at play when JV relationships go bad. The case also discusses how the relationships
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
Will White is a co-author of this post, and is a Summer Associate at Bradley.
One of the several attractive aspects of arbitration is the finality of the decision. With limited grounds to appeal or vacate an arbitration award, litigants can generally expect a final award to end any controversy between them. There are, however
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
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
I have practiced law for 40 years, with the vast majority of that time spent as a “construction lawyer.” I have seen great… and bad… construction lawyering, both when on the other side of a dispute, as well as when serving well over 300 times as a mediator or arbitrator in construction disputes. To be
I have practiced law for 40 years, with the vast majority spent as a “construction lawyer.” I have seen great… and bad… construction lawyering, both when on the other side of a dispute, as well as when serving well over 300 times as a mediator or arbitrator in construction disputes. To be clear, I have
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
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