Case Summaries - Archive | Construction Claims & Risk Management

Aug 31, 2026

•

Contractor Could Rely on As-Builts Despite Contractual Disclaimers

Broad disclaimers did not negate the government's responsibility for the accuracy of the as-built drawings furnished to the contractor. The contractor’s notification of differing site conditions two weeks after discovery was sufficiently prompt.

Aug 31, 2026

•

Negotiation of Liquidated Damages Did Not Trigger Claim Notice Period

Ongoing negotiations of responsibility for an extended performance period did not establish a contractor’s knowledge of the basis for a claim. These negotiations did not trigger the 30-day claim notice period.

Aug 14, 2026

•

Location of Project Determines Law of Performance Bond Claim

A one-year claim limitation provision in a performance bond was enforceable under Virginia law, even though the bonded subcontract for the Virginia-based project was executed in Maryland between two Maryland companies.

Aug 14, 2026

•

Minnesota High Court Rules “Termination” Is Technical Construction Term

The word termination, as used in the construction industry and construction contracts, refers to the end of a contractual relationship, not the conclusion of physical construction work.

Aug 14, 2026

•

Specifications Did Not Prevent Manufacturer’s Warranty

A defaulted contractor failed to show that the government’s specifications were defective. They also failed to link issues with those specs to the contractor’s tardy performance.

Jul 31, 2026

•

Bid Protester Had Same Deficiency of Which It Complained

A second low bidder committed the same bid deficiency that motivated its protest against the low bid. It therefore suffered no prejudice and could not maintain a protest based on bid responsiveness.

Jul 31, 2026

•

Use of “Fragnet” Did Not Alter Critical Path of Schedule

A fragmentary network is a CPM modeling tool that can be used to hypothesize regarding the impact of a specific event. It does not necessarily reflect what is occurring on the ground and, in itself, does not alter the project's critical path.

Jul 15, 2026

•

Architect’s License Revoked for Falsifying Continuing Education Documents

The Nebraska Supreme Court upheld a five-year ban from practice for an architect who falsified continuing education documents.

Jul 15, 2026

•

Arizona High Court Addresses Project Owner Liability to Subcontractor

A property owner allegedly received improvements performed by a subcontractor and paid no one for the work. The Arizona Supreme Court said that even in the absence of owner misconduct, the owner could be liable to the subcontractor for unjust enrichment. The lack of contractual privity did not insulate the owner.

Jul 15, 2026

•

Federal Circuit Upholds Denial of Site Condition Claim

A contractor relied on soil test boring logs from other areas of the work site when it was not reasonable to do so. The contractor could not draw conclusions about site conditions from a contract provision that had been deleted prior to bid submittal.

Jul 1, 2026

•

Exchange of Price Information Led to Bid Rigging Conviction

An exchange of pricing information among competitors led to a criminal conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids, and allocate market share, resulting in a violation of the Sherman Act.

Jul 1, 2026

•

Labor Union May Recover Against Public Works Payment Bond

A collective bargaining agreement between a union and a prime contractor obligated the contractor to assist the union in collecting benefit plan contributions from the contractor’s subs. The union had the right to seek recovery of unpaid subcontractor contributions from the contractor’s payment bond.

Jun 1, 2026

•

Sub-Bid Subcontract Could Include Out-of-Trade Work

A contract drawing had not been admitted into the judicial record. Consequently, an appellate court could not determine whether out-of-trade site improvements had been incorporated into the masonry subcontract.

Jun 1, 2026

•

Contract Accidentally Signed “Individually

The managing member of a limited liability company signed a signature block that referred to the member “individually.” The body of the agreement, however, consistently referred to the LLC as the contracting party. The agreement was ambiguous regarding the member’s personal liability on the contract.