Effective Allocation of Damages for Federal Contract Claims
October 25, 2021 —
Dirk D. Haire, Joseph L. Cohen & Jane Han - ConsensusDocsFederal construction contracts law generally recognizes four basic methods for pricing damages: (1) Actual Cost Method (ACM); (2) Total Cost Method (TCM); (3) Modified Total Cost Method (MTCM); and (4) Jury Verdict Recovery Method (JVRM). In practice, it is difficult to obtain significant recoveries on TCM and JVRM claims, and only marginally easier on MTCM claims. That is because the courts and boards that hear federal government contracts cases have developed a clear preference for the ACM. Despite this preference, many contractors do not have systems in place to maximize their opportunity to recover damages under the ACM. This article introduces various strategies for tracking and allocating damages during project performance in a manner that will support an ACM analysis if a federal construction claim is litigated.
Background: Four Basic Methods for Pricing Damages
The four methods for pricing damages are described, below:
1. Actual Cost Method
The actual cost method claims damages based on records of “actual costs” that were documented during the performance of the contract. All additional costs must be separately recorded from the costs incurred in the normal course of contract performance. Because contractors provide the court or board with documented underlying expenses under the actual cost method, courts and boards prefer this method. However, the actual cost method may not always be feasible where a contractor is confronted with drastic changes early and often in a project.
Reprinted courtesy of
Dirk D. Haire, Fox Rothschild LLP,
Joseph L. Cohen, Fox Rothschild LLP and
Jane Han, Fox Rothschild LLP
Mr. Haire may be contacted at dhaire@foxrothschild.com
Mr. Cohen may be contacted at jlcohen@foxrothschild.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Illinois Supreme Court Trigger Rule for CGL Personal Injury “Offenses” Could Have Costly Consequences for Policyholders
March 09, 2020 —
Michael S. Levine & Kevin V. Small - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogThe Illinois Supreme Court’s recent decision in Sanders v. Illinois Union Insurance Co., 2019 IL 124565 (2019), announced the standard for triggering general liability coverage for malicious prosecution claims under Illinois law. In its decision, the court construed what appears to be a policy ambiguity against the policyholder in spite of the longstanding rule of contra proferentem, limiting coverage to policies in place at the time of the wrongful prosecution, and not the policies in effect when the final element of the tort of malicious prosecution occurred (i.e. the exoneration of the plaintiff). The net result of the court’s ruling for policyholders susceptible to such claims is that coverage for jury verdicts for malicious prosecution – awarded in today’s dollars – is limited to the coverage procured at the time of the wrongful prosecution, which may (as in this case) be decades old. Such a scenario can have costly consequences for policyholders given that the limits procured decades ago are often inadequate due to the ever-increasing awards by juries as well as inflation. Moreover, it may be difficult to locate the legacy policies and the insurers that issued such policies may no longer be solvent or even exist. A copy of the decision can be found
here.
The Sanders case arose out of the wrongful conviction of Rodell Sanders in 1994 by the City of Chicago Heights (the “City”). Mr. Sanders sought recompense for, among other things, malicious prosecution through a federal civil rights action against the City. In September 2016, Mr. Sanders obtained a consent judgment for $15 Million; however, at the time of the wrongful conviction, seventeen years earlier, the City’s only applicable insurance policy provided just $3 million in coverage. The City contributed another $2 million towards the judgment and, in exchange for Mr. Sanders’s agreement not to seek the $10 million balance from the City, assigned its rights under the policies for the 2012 to 2014 period.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Kevin V. Small, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Small may be contacted at ksmall@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois Moves to Top 15 in Law360 2022 Diversity Snapshot
August 15, 2022 —
Rima Badawiya - Lewis Brisbois NewsroomLos Angeles, Calif. (August 4, 2022) - Lewis Brisbois has ranked 13th in Law360’s 2022 Diversity Snapshot – a measure of the overall presence of individuals from underrepresented backgrounds in law firms of all sizes.
Throughout Lewis Brisbois’ history, the firm has been recognized for high achievements in the areas of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Over the past year, its focus on capturing the full picture of its diversity has led to the firm’s rise in several diversity rankings – including the Law360 Diversity Snapshot. As described in the Law360 Pulse article,
"Diversity Snapshot: Representation in the Ranks," the Diversity Snapshot serves as a “comprehensive ranking of law firms on their overall representation of minority attorneys,” providing “a picture of where firms are now, and where the future might lead.”
Moreover, as explained in the main article of this special publication,
"Diversity Snapshot: How Firms Stack Up," Law360 used its own historical surveys as well as data from the American Bar Association to evaluate the diversity in firm headcounts against benchmarks that reflected diversity in the potential marketplace of new hires. Lewis Brisbois’ efforts to capture its diversity numbers has led to a significant increase in the firm’s position from 58th to 13th. This year's Snapshot includes 291 law firms, with 75 in the 600+ attorneys category.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rima Badawiya, Lewis BrisboisMs. Badawiya may be contacted at
Rima.Badawiya@lewisbrisbois.com
You Are on Notice: Failure to Comply With Contractual Notice Provisions Can Be Fatal to Your Claim
September 26, 2022 —
Jenifer B. Minsky - ConsensusDocsImagine your firm is the construction manager on a multi-million-dollar project. At the end of the project you are five million dollars out-of-pocket. You have a stack of claims for additional and extended work which led to the overrun, payment for which will easily cover the shortfall. However, the owner refuses to compensate you until you can satisfactorily answer their inquiry: “Where are the notices that are expressly required under the terms of the contract?” You had a good relationship with the owner’s field representative who was aware you were performing the work and understood that your company was compiling claims. The once cooperative owner, now suffering financial restraints of their own, is resolute in their refusal leaving you no choice but to expend substantial sums of money to litigate the claims, the success of which is far from assured.
What Contract Language Can Be A Trap For An Unwary Contractor?
While courts are generally hesitant to order a forfeiture and some courts disfavor condition precedents, a judge’s hands may be tied by particular contract language requiring the strict enforcement of notice requirements. Such provisions may include: (1) an explicit clause that there be precise compliance with notice requirements; (2) express consequences for noncompliance (e.g., if the required notice is not provided the claim will be waived, forfeited or abandoned); (3) a statement that the notice requirements are a condition precedent to recovery; (4) language such as “if,” “provided that,” “or else” or “on condition that” (e.g., the owner shall review the claim, “provided such claim” was received within the applicable notice period) or (5) prohibition of any waiver of the notice requirement. To the extent the notice provision includes such language, a contractor can be without recourse even when the owner has actual knowledge of the claims or cannot show prejudice by the lack of notice.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jenifer B. Minsky, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Ms. Minsky may be contacted at
jminsky@pecklaw.com
Guidance for Construction Leaders: How Is the Americans With Disabilities Act Applied During the Pandemic?
September 28, 2020 —
Molly Gwin - Construction ExecutiveWith the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous cities and states have mandated infection control practices, including social distancing, mask requirements and sanitization of work areas and tools. As a result, many construction leaders now have questions as to how government guidance related to COVID-19 interacts with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). For example, can a project manager enforce a mask mandate when a construction worker presents a doctor’s excuse noting breathing difficulties? Or, what if the employer is aware that an individual presents a higher risk for severe illness because of an underlying health condition, but that employee does not request an accommodation?
Thankfully, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently published guidance relating to these requests that construction leaders can reference. While our goal is to summarize that guidance and provide practical advice for the construction sector, this article does not substitute for situation specific legal counsel.
SCENARIO 1: AN EMPLOYEE REFUSES TO WEAR A MASK AND PRODUCES A DOCTOR’S NOTE CITING BREATHING DIFFICULTIES. MUST THE EMPLOYER ACCOMMODATE SUCH A REQUEST?
Potentially. Since the request to not wear a mask is considered an accommodation under the ADA, the employer can still require a doctor’s note when considering the accommodation.
Reprinted courtesy of
Molly Gwin, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ms. Gwin may be contacted at
mgwin@isaacwiles.com
Third Circuit Follows Pennsylvania Law - Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship Does Not Arise from an Occurrence
May 10, 2013 —
Tred EyerlyThe Third Circuit followed Pennsylvania law in determining that damage caused by faulty workmanship did not arise from an occurrence. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. R. M. Shoemaker Co., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6093 (3d Cir. March 27, 2013).
The County sued R. M. Shoemaker, alleging faulty construction of an addition to a correctional institution. The County alleged Shoemaker negligently supervised its subcontractor, thereby permitting the subcontractor to engage in willful misconduct, resulting in damage to structural elements of the correctional institution. The County alleged that Shoemaker's negligence permitted water to intrude, damaging the electrical systems, acoustic ceilings and miscellaneous equipment.
Zurich sought a declaratory judgment that it was not required to defend or indemnify Shoemaker. The district court granted Zurich summary judgment. Relying on Pennsylvania law, the district court found that the allegations in the underlying action did not arise from an occurrence.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyMr. Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Residential Construction Rise Expected to Continue
May 10, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFHousingwire reports that Fannie Mae has predicted strong increases in housing starts over the last few years, with an expected return to normal by 2016. If this holds true, residential construction will include 2.5 million jobs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Defect Disputes: Know Your Measure of Damages!!!!!
January 21, 2025 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesRemember this: know your measure of damages in a construction defect dispute. If you don’t, as shown below, the outcome can be unforgiving. The measure of damages is one of your most important elements of proof. You are filing suit for damages; thus, knowing what you can reasonably recovery is paramount.
In a recent dispute, Bandklayder Development, LLC v. Sabga, 50 Fla.L.Weekly D91e (Fla. 3d DCA 2025), a residential developer sold a single-family house while it was under construction in an as-is purchase agreement. Post-closing, the purchasers claimed defects and served a Florida Statutes Chapter 558 notice of construction defects letter. The purchaser subsequently initiated a construction defect lawsuit. During the nonjury trial, the purchaser’s expert testified that the purchasers suffered damages approximating $323,000 calculated as of January 19, 2022 (which was the date of the expert’s report). The expert further testified that the cost to finish the incomplete/defective work increased by 35% at the date of the May 2023 trial. However, the expert never testified as to the amount of damages as of the date of the contractual breach, which at the latest, would have been in April 2018 when the notice of construction defects letter was sent (or, at its earliest, June 2017 when closing occurred). At trial, the judge entered judgment for the purchasers in the amount of about $425,0000. This was reversed on appeal with judgment to be entered in favor of the developer. Why? Because the purchasers employed the wrong measure of damages and the only thing that prevented them from introducing the right measure of damages was within their control. Harsh outcome for not applying the correct measure of damages!
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
