Highway, Bridge and Heavy Equipment
This list contains descriptions of selected matters involving bridges, heavy-highway construction, and related matters. Of course, we also handle matters involving industrial, commercial, condominium, multi-family, hospital, power plant, resort, and institutional construction.
We represented a joint venture of three general contractors in an action against the Georgia DOT arising from delays and disruptions experienced while building the Atlanta Downtown Connector, then the largest highway project ever built in Georgia ($112,000,000). The project involved, in addition to roadway work, construction of 29 bridges and more than 30 other structures. The claim and resulting litigation sought in excess of $20,000,000. In mediation, we obtained what we understand to be the largest monetary settlement ever paid by GDOT on a single project, and the GDOT waived liquidated damages claims.
We represented an earth-moving contractor in a multi-million dollar dispute arising out of massive earthwork associated with improvements to the Tennessee Tombigbee Channels. The disputes related to differing site conditions and additional work. In negotiations with the Corps of Engineers, the claims were settled favorably for our client. We also represented this contractor in claims against the City of Bowie, Texas arising out of the construction of a large earthen dam and reservoir. Claims involved issues of differing site conditions, delay and acceleration. All claims were resolved on favorable terms, without litigation.
We represented a general contractor in a suit against a subcontractor arising out of the construction of taxiways, helicopter pads and a large military helicopter maintenance facility in Fort Hood, Texas. There were two failed mediation attempts. After a six-week jury trial in Bell County, Texas (near Waco), we recovered $1.7 million (almost nine times what had been offered in settlement, and, at that time, the largest jury verdict ever rendered in the history of Bell County).
We represented a subcontractor which fabricated and erected structural and other steel for the general contractor on the Denver International Airport. The general contractor withheld subcontract balance of $1.3 million and filed a demand for arbitration seeking an affirmative award in excess of $8,000,000, claiming delayed and defective work by the steel fabricator and erector. The subcontractor counterclaimed for subcontract balance, sub-subcontractor's pass-through claim and miscellaneous items owed. With binding arbitration one month away, the parties conducted a two-day mediation, which resulted in the general contractor agreeing to drop its affirmative claim in its entirety and to pay the subcontractor's entire contract balance plus an additional $250,000.
We represented an electrical contractor on claims against the Virginia DOT arising out of construction of the Chesapeake Bay Tunnel. The claim involved extra costs and delays associated with the signaling, communications, and telemetry equipment for the tunnel. We assisted both our client and their (signaling) subcontractor to obtain a large settlement through negotiations.
We represented a general contractor against the Arkansas DOT arising out of the construction of a bridge over the Red River in Arkansas. The caisson subcontractor encountered a differing site condition and asserted a claim against our client. The general and subcontractor were involved in protracted litigation in federal court before our involvement. The general brought us in as lead counsel. We then negotiated a pass-through agreement in which the subcontractor agreed to look only to the State for payment of its claim. We represented the general, and assisted the subcontractor, in presenting claims for extra work and delays against the Arkansas DOT in binding arbitration. The general and subcontractor each received almost a million dollars on their respective claims.
We represented a large road and bridge builder in a claim against the Nebraska DOT arising out of the construction of a bridge over the Missouri River. The major issues involved defective rebar and delays. We settled the claim favorably at an early date, after filing a lawsuit, without the need for any depositions.
We represented a subcontractor on a claim against the Nevada DOT arising out of misrepresentations concerning the quality and quantity of rock aggregate material represented to be available in borrow pits. In a nonbinding arbitration before a Nevada State Highway Review Board, our client obtained a settlement of several million dollars, exclusive of markups and other damages allocated to the general contractor who passed through our client's claim to the Nevada DOT.
We represented a general contractor and a subcontractor, on a pass-through basis, against the Wyoming Highway Department. The project involved the construction of a portion of an interstate highway. Our client's claim was based on misrepresentations of the quality and quantity of rock aggregate material represented to be available in owner-furnished borrow pits. Our client obtained a very favorable settlement as a result of a court-ordered mediation, with a retired Wyoming Supreme Court judge acting as a mediator.
We represented one of the nation's largest road builders on claims alleging differing site conditions on a highway and bridge project in Louisiana. We defended the general's interests against a piling subcontractor, pursued a claim against the Louisiana DOT, and negotiated an extremely favorable settlement, without any depositions. Litigation costs were minimal, given the amount in controversy.
We represented two contractors in piling, changed conditions, and rebar claims against the South Carolina DOT involving construction of portions of the James Island Expressway, connecting Charleston to James Island. We settled one case by mediation, recovering $1,250,000. We settled the remaining contractor's claims after a successful appeal to the South Carolina Court of Appeals.
We represented a multi-national cement manufacturer/supplier in a defensive suit wherein a customer claimed in excess of $15 million for consequential damages due to an alleged defect in the product. We counterclaimed for $2 million, the cost of the product. After a two-week jury trial in federal court in Baltimore, Maryland, the jury returned a verdict in our client's favor, awarding nothing to the customer, and awarding to our client the entire sales price plus interest. The verdict was affirmed by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
We represented a general contractor on claims against the Florida DOT arising out of the construction of several bridges in the Florida Keys. The claims included allegations of faulty design by Figg & Mueller, on segmented bridges. Environmental restrictions were also the basis of certain claims. The claims were settled after commencing a lawsuit.
We represented one of the largest heavy highway contractors in the world on claims arising from Georgia DOT projects. Principals of our client settled one case by discussions with the Highway Commissioner a week before trial and further reached agreement on other pending claims.
We represented a Boston general contractor in a claim against the United States Coast Guard arising out of the construction of a vessel maintenance facility. The project resulted in several claims, including a delay and disruption claim, and many consolidated change order claims totaling several hundred thousand dollars. All of the claims were negotiated successfully with the Coast Guard contracting officer and Coast Guard counsel, with the result that the contractor recovered 90 percent of its claims.
We represented a general contractor in preparing and presenting a claim to the Corps of Engineers in Savannah, Georgia, arising out of the construction of a dam on the Savannah River. The claim arose from the discovery of a differing site condition which affected the construction of footings and foundations. The contractor was required to drive sheet piling for cofferdams much deeper than anticipated, and resulted in a delay to the construction. The claim was settled, after a government audit, for approximately 95 percent of the contractor's requested damages.
We represented a general contractor in a claim against the Georgia DOT arising out of delays in the construction of ten post tension bridges on an Atlanta interstate project. After receiving several million dollars in a settlement with GDOT, we pursued our client's remaining claims against the architect and a supplier of post tensioning materials and shop drawings, resulting in a substantial jury award.
We represented a general contractor against the Georgia DOT on a highway project involving the lowering of a highway interchange under traffic. After a week long jury trial, the jury awarded all of the damages we sought, including attorneys' fees and litigation expenses. The verdict was affirmed by the Georgia Court of Appeals.
We represented a general contractor in an action brought by a subcontractor on a project involving the construction of seven bridges on I-475 for Georgia DOT in Bibb and Monroe Counties. The case was tried in Macon, Georgia. The subcontractor recovered nothing and our client recovered on its counterclaim for breach of contract.
We represented a general contractor on two substantial claims against the Georgia DOT arising out of two Atlanta interstate projects. Our client obtained several million dollars on these claims in settlement with GDOT.
We represented a general contractor against SCDOT in a dispute arising out of a Greenville apartment project which was 60% complete when it was condemned. After a lawsuit was filed we had several meetings to negotiate a settlement. After the matter was settled, counsel for SCDOT contacted us for our views and advice on a matter the state was defending in connection with a state construction project.
We represented a general contractor in a delay claim against the Florida DOT arising out of construction of several bridges in the Tallahassee area. Again, the dispute was settled without the necessity to file a formal lawsuit.
We represented the general contractor on a matter arising out of a Louisiana DOT project involving a tie-back wall collapse during construction of highway, bridges and approaches. The dispute included questions of soil mechanics, engineering, schedules, delay and acceleration.
We represented a general contractor in an action brought by a rebar/formwork subcontractor for retainage held. Our client counterclaimed for defective work. Factual issues required us to study and extensively deal with the standards, customs and practice for reinforcing steel placement and tying, including ACI and CRSI. We also worked with several qualified experts in these subjects. We tried the case to a jury in Charlotte, North Carolina. The subcontractor recovered nothing on its claim. Our client kept all retainage held and obtained an additional affirmative award.
We have consulted with the Puerto Rico Autoridad de Carreteras y Transportacion (similar to our DOT) in connection with their contract forms, bidding processes, and ongoing claims resolution process with contractors.
We represented a site grading contractor who was one of several multiple prime contractors for the construction of the Charlotte Convention Center, in Charlotte, North Carolina. The issues involved delay, liquidated damages, blasting criteria, construction methods, adequacy of design criteria, and construction sequence and scheduling issues.
We represented a piling subcontractor in a differing site condition claim against the Veterans Administration. Following a trial which yielded a liability award, we negotiated a settlement in which the VA paid several hundred thousand dollars for our client's claim.
|
 |
|