Library - Construction Claims Monthly

Find out what twists and turns the construction claims world is taking. Browse the latest issue of Construction Claims Monthly to stay on top of recent verdicts, smart contracting strategies and common claims missteps:

• WHO’S TO BLAME: CONTRACTOR LIABILITY WHERE THE FACT FINDER CAN’T APPORTION FAULT

• LEAD CONTAMINATION IS A TYPE II DIFFERING CONDITION, GOVT. TO FOOT DISPOSAL BILL

• SUB’S $1.2 MILLION EXTRA WORK CLAIM COULDN’T CLEAR WRITTEN CONSENT HURDLE

• CONTRACTOR HAD DUTY TO DISCLOSE NEGOTIATIONS THAT OUSTED SUB FROM PROJECT

• PARTIES’ CONTRACT DID NOT CONTAIN A FORUM-SELECTION CLAUSE

• FEDERAL GOVT. WAS JUST A ‘NOMINAL’ PARTY TO SUB’S MILLER ACT SUIT

• BIDDER’S DESIGN PROPOSAL DEMONSTRATED ‘SOME RISK OF FAILURE’

• MILLER ACT‘PUBLIC WORK’ DEFINEDBY GOVT.’S USE

• TEMPORAL LIMITATIONNOT‘A BEDROCK HURDLE’ TO PLEADING DIFFERING CONDITIONS

• NO CHANGE ORDER NEEDED FOR OWNER TO RECOUP COMPLETION COSTS

• SUB MAY RECOVER PROFITS UNDER MILLER ACT

• SUB’S ‘I WON’T PERFORM UNLESS’ THREAT AMOUNTED TO CONTRACT BREACH

• SLOW WORK, NOT SLOW PROGRESS PAYMENTS, LED TO CONTRACTOR’S DEFAULT

• GOVT.’S EDIT OF DESIGN CRITERIA WAS A CONTRACT CHANGE

• PROJECT SOLICITATION’S AMBIGUITY WARRANTED ITS CANCELLATION

• Sub Reinstated Overhead Costs That Were Deleted With Deleted Work

• No Ambiguity In Condition Precedent Where Natural Reading Makes It Plain

• Define ‘Contract Admin Costs’ By Their Purpose

• Sub To Pay For ‘Manning Up’ To Meet Work Scope Changes

• ‘Assisting’ Contractor Performance Isn’t Necessarily A Surety Takeover