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

Earlier this month, the State of Washington Court of Appeals affirmed a $150 million jury verdict against subcontractors involved in the disassembly of a tower crane that collapsed in 2019. The collapse, which was caught on video, killed four people and injured five. The Washington court’s recent opinion is notable for its detailed explanation of what

Another week, another fee-shifting case. This ones involves a 28-unit condo project in the Houston Heights neighborhood of Houston (see 2017 Yale Development, LLC v. Steadfast Funding, LLC, 2023 WL 3184028 (Tex. App. May 2, 2023)). The project failed after the developer defaulted on its loans and several contractors filed liens on the property. 

The Texas Supreme Court recently provided new guidance in interpreting force majeure language in an oil and gas drilling dispute. In Point Energy Partners Permian, LLC v. MRC Permian Company, the court held that the oil and gas lessee’s scheduling error linked to a well collapse 60 miles from the lease site at issue