Construction Law

Representative Matters

• Lead counsel for general contractor in a dispute against a joint venture manufacturer in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.  Contractor was unlawfully terminated by manufacturer after mechanical completion had been granted, causing contractor to spend millions of dollars that were not paid by manufacturer.  This litigation involved compelling international discovery, including arranging a deposition of a Japanese national through the U.S. Consulate during the COVID pandemic.  At the conclusion of an 8-day jury trial, contractor received a favorable verdict and was awarded $16.8 million dollars, the full amount contractor requested.
• Lead counsel for a joint venture contractor in connection with claims for damage to a tunnel boring machine (TBM) on the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement tunnel project in Seattle, Washington.  The state department of transportation was the owner of the project, which was over $1 billion and, at the time, the TBM was the largest ever constructed and used.  During construction of the tunnel the TBM was damaged when it encountered a steel pipe in the tunnel alignment.  Contractor’s total damages for investigating the damages and repairing the TBM exceeded $500 million.  The claims were litigated in state courts against multiple parties including owner for a differing site condition, contractor’s European-based builder’s risk insurers for denying insurance coverage, and the Japanese manufacturer of the TBM.  The litigations involved multiple other parties and the cases were consolidated for discovery purposes resulting in the taking of over 130 depositions and the production of millions of documents. In addition, we facilitated the translation of hundreds of thousands of documents from Japanese and Spanish to English and the subsequent review of those documents. Contractor ultimately resolved its claims with TBM manufacturer prior to trial.  Owner claims were tried in a jury trial that lasted over three months and went to verdict.  Insurance claims went to a jury trial before a settlement was reached during the first week of trial.
• Lead counsel for a world-leading producer of specialty metal products for numerous industries, including aerospace, energy, and defense, in connection with a dispute involving their construction of a state-of-the-art heavy gauge bright annealing line.   The producer’s electrical contractor, who failed to meet project milestones, asserted claims alleging design deficiencies, differing site conditions and other trade contractor interferences, with the parties’ competing claims exceeding $6M.
• Lead counsel for state transit authority against joint venture general contractor and five surety companies on a $213 million facility improvements project.  General contractor abandoned the project and sureties denied performance under the applicable performance and payment bonds, leaving the transit authority with an incomplete project affecting an active heavy rail commuter line.  The litigation involves the complex issues of the total rehabilitation and improvement of a heavy rail yard and train maintenance facility, procurement of the work, addressing the financial fragility and inability of general contractor to perform the work, and the sureties’ bad faith denial of performance bond claims.  Sophisticated matters at issue include the sequencing and scheduling of work to be performed on an active heavy rail yard, cleaning and relining underground electrical conduit, and the design and constructability of the project.
• Counsel for a Canadian general contractor and its Italian parent company involving a contract for the construction of a natural gas pipeline.  Contractor asserted claims for breach of contract, wrongful termination, and quantum meruit.  Owner asserted counterclaims against the contractor for breach of contract, negligence, willful misconduct and default.  Owner also asserted a breach of contract claim against the Italian parent company under a parental guarantee furnished in connection with the project.  The aggregate value of the claims and counterclaims asserted was in excess of CAD $1.5 billion.  Even though the arbitration was seated in Canada, the matter involved complex international discovery and data management issues, including strict adherence with the requirements of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation for the production of tens of thousands of documents from the server of the Italian parent company to respond to discovery.  The matter was scheduled for three weeks of hearings before a three-member arbitration panel and was resolved favorably prior to the commencement of the hearings.
• Lead counsel for joint venture contractor which contracted with a public owner to build a multi-billion dollar high-speed rail project in the United States.  The total contract price for contractor, which was hired to construct a portion of the overall project, was over $1.3 billion.  Contractor asserted claims against owner for the failure to issue change orders for extra work owner directed contractor to perform.  The claims involved multiple disputed change orders that totaled over $200 million.  The claims were submitted to a private arbitration per the terms of the contract.  After a two-week arbitration and the presentation of multiple witnesses in front of a three-person panel, an award was issued in favor of contractor.
• Lead counsel for joint venture construction and engineering contractor in a dispute with their builder’s risk insurers in connection with a nearly $100M loss suffered while performing work on the $3+ billion dollar I-64 bridge and tunnel expansion project in Hampton Roads region in Virginia for the state department of transportation.  The project involved expansion of currently-existing causeways and artificial islands, and creation of two new tunnels under the Chesapeake Bay.  Following litigation in federal court, as well as multiple rounds of mediation, contractor obtained a favorable settlement from insurers for a significant portion of contractor’s claim.
• Counsel for a Canadian general contractor involving a contract for the development and construction of a propane dehydrogenation and polypropylene upgrading facility, located in Alberta, Canada.  General contractor asserted claims against owner in excess of CAD $50 million for breach of contract for unpaid additional work, delay damages and inefficiencies, and wrongful termination.  Owner asserted counterclaims against general contractor arising out of an alleged default under the contract in an amount in excess of CAD $17 million.  Following multi-week hearings, the three-member arbitration panel issued an award favorable to the general contractor, including a full award of costs.
• Lead counsel for a steel fabricator and supplier based in Thailand for steel fabricated in Thailand and shipped to the United States for use in the construction of an ethylene cracker plant located outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  The steel fabricator and supplier asserted claims for breach of contract against the contractor seeking monetary damages in excess of $5 million for unpaid invoices. The contractor asserted counterclaims for alleged defects in an estimated amount in excess of $20 million. The matter involved the collection and production of project-related documents located in Thailand, as well as parallel litigation in Thai courts regarding contractor’s attempts to draw on the fabricator’s and supplier’s letters of credit posted by various Thai banks.   Following the hearings conducted in New York, New York, the three-member arbitration panel rendered an award favorable to the fabricator and supplier.
• Lead counsel for a national contractor n multiple disputes with its insurance carrier relating to subcontractor default insurance (SDI).   The carrier had denied coverage in whole or in part for several SDI claims relating to defaulting subcontractors on numerous multi-million dollar projects throughout the country involving commercial and mixed-use development, state and public construction, and transportation and infrastructure projects.  The total amount of the unpaid SDI claims exceeded $75 million and involved three separate arbitrations.  One week-long arbitration before a three-person panel resulted in an award being issued in contractor’s favor.  Another hearing involved 19 days of testimony and then was resolved favorably to our client by settlement before an award was issued.  The third arbitration was ongoing at the time and was also resolved by settlement.
• Lead counsel for one of the largest New York area electrical contracting, construction, and engineering firms in a dispute with construction manager and owner arising from a $2+ billion project refurbishing and upgrading multiple buildings and facilities in New York City.  The matter involves three separate, but substantively equivalent, ad hoc arbitrations.  Electrical contractor claimed that throughout the projects the construction manager and owner implemented an extraordinary number of material additions and changes to the scope, schedule and sequence of its work and otherwise actively interfered with the electrical contractor’s work and failed to compensate electrical contractor over $58 million in extra costs incurred as a result, including excess costs for change order work and lost productivity.