Industrial Construction
The following listing includes only industrial or similar (complex, high-value mechanical, electrical and instrumentation) projects. We also have substantial experience, not included here, in connection with governmental, health-care, institutional, multi-family and commercial building construction; heavy and highway construction; environmental remediation projects; and pipeline and fiber-optic cable installation.
We represented the mechanical piping contractor for a coal-fired power plant in Central Florida, in litigation concerning the termination of its contract, for default. Approximately $40 million was at issue. Case proceeded through discovery, and was resolved through ADR.
We represented the owner on a $70 million recovery boiler replacement project at a paper mill in south Georgia. The litigation in federal court claimed $25 million, claiming various changes and disruptions to the work. The case was settled through mediation, prior to the completion of discovery, for a small fraction of the amount claimed. Our litigation strategy was to isolate the claims from jury risk, by moving for and obtaining a reference to a Special Master. In addition, we carried out a "limited-discovery-then-mediation" plan, to maximize the chances of a reasonable resolution prior to completion of all discovery and pre-trial activity. Although the discovery taken was extensive (hundreds of thousands of documents reviewed and indexed, and many days of depositions), a great deal of discovery costs were avoided by the successful use of a mid-stream mediation.
We defended a national mechanical piping contractor against claims by the owner of a nuclear power plant in Little Rock, Arkansas. The owner claimed more than $9 million in damages, alleging fraud, misrepresentation and punitive damages. After completing discovery, the case was settled for $175,000.
We represented a Wisconsin contractor on two design build projects in Owensboro, Kentucky, involving the design and construction of a recycled fiber facility and water treatment/wastewater treatment facility. We prepared detailed claims in-house for extra work and impact costs associated with design enhancements. The claims were resolved through direct negotiations, with a recovery in excess of $2.5 million.
We represented the third largest mechanical and electrical contractor in Canada on a paint conveyor installation in Ontario, Canada. We presented a detailed claim relating to defective design and late issuance of design drawings. After mediation, the case was settled with a recovery of $1.5 million.
We represented the mechanical contractor for a paper plant in Virginia, in claims against the owner. The case was settled with a recovery over $1 million, after submission of a detailed claim presentation, and subsequent negotiations.
We represented the general contractor for construction of a pharmaceutical plant in Augusta , Georgia , in arbitration against the owner. The case involved over 200 change order claims, involving virtually every discipline from civil construction through instrumentation. Case was settled through an ADR procedure.
We represented the instrumentation and controls subcontractor for a cogeneration plant, incident to a cigarette plant in North Carolina. Claim was for impact and cardinal change, of about $4 million. Case was settled directly with the owner, after negotiations broke down with the general contractor.
We represented the mechanical contractor in a case involving a cigarette plant. Claims were asserted for delay and disruption, resulting in a settlement recovery over $1 million.
We represented the mechanical contractor for a paper machine rebuild in New Hampshire, in claims against the owner for cardinal change and impact costs. Case was settled after pre-trial order filed, for 80% of claim.
We represented the largest industrial contractor in Wisconsin, in connection with claims on various projects, including paper mill renovations and paper machine rebuilds in Kalamazoo, Michigan; Ontonogen, Wisconsin; Washington state; and Wyckliffe, Kentucky. Each claim involved several million dollars, and all claims were either successfully negotiated or subject to a favorable arbitration award (owner and contractor settled; paid nothing on subcontractor's claim). In the Wyckliffe, Kentucky action, contractor and owner entered into a pass-through agreement to settle and liquidate claims between them, jointly defend subcontractor’s claim, and assert their affirmative claims against subcontractor in arbitration. Owner and contractor awarded over $2 million against subcontractor.
We represented the piping contractor on a plastics plant in Evansville, Indiana, with a claim against the general contractor. Claim was settled through ADR.
We represented the general contractor in connection with claims litigation on two sewage treatment plants, which (while not technically industrial) involved complex mechanical systems and equipment, and sophisticated electrical and instrumentation/control systems.
We represented the mechanical contractor for a steam and power plant incident to an automotive assembly plant in Kentucky, in claims for cardinal change, impact costs, and unresolved change orders. After trials before a Special Master, contractor was awarded over $4.5 million. Special Master’s award was adopted by federal district court, and affirmed per curiam by the Sixth Circuit. We have previously represented this contractor in claims arising out of cross-country fiber-optic cable installation contracts. After failing to settle its dispute with the owner, contractor filed an arbitration demand for $2 million for delay. The owner filed counterclaims of $39 million, claiming substantial reinstallation work (owner had actually expended the sums claimed). After lengthy arbitration, contractor prevailed with a net affirmative award of over $1 million.
We represented the contractor on a power plant in Nova Scotia, Canada, in connection with claims against the owner. We have previously represented the same contractor in connection with claims involving another power plant in Nova Scotia, two power plant claims in Newfoundland, an oil-bunkering facility in Newfoundland, and an oil refinery claim, also in Canada. All claims have been successfully negotiated and resolved.
We represented a steel fabricator in a claim involving nuclear welding specifications at the Idaho National Energy Laboratory. Claim settled for full amount, plus attorneys' fees.
We represented an industrial mechanical contractor in two claims arising in a fossil fuel power plant in Louisiana . Both claims settled through direct negotiations.
We represented a mechanical subcontractor in litigation against a general contractor and the Massachusetts Water & Resources Authority, seeking refund of retainage and damages for delay. The case was settled through ADR.
We represented the electrical subcontractor in a claim and subsequent lawsuit against the general contractor arising out of the construction of a steel galvanizing plant on the Ohio River in West Virginia. When the general contractor and owner refused to pay $750,000 in settlement of the claim at an early stage, the case was tried to a jury in Allegheny County, resulting in a verdict and judgment for our client of $3 million. Case settled for payment to our client of almost entire amount of jury verdict.
We represented the electrical contractor in claims involving a cereal manufacturing plant in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Claim settled within two months of submission for $275,000.
We represented the owner on a paper machine rebuild project in Mississippi, in claims against the general contractor (and defending claims brought by the general contractor). The case was settled after ADR proceedings. Claimant and general contractor received only small portions of its multi-million dollar claim.
We represented a Canadian engineering firm in a lawsuit brought by an injured plant employee. The employee claimed serious personal injuries arose from defective design portions of the plant. The case involved questions of code compliance as well as general design safety.
Although our client's claim was not related to industrial construction, we represented a large caisson contractor in two multi-million dollar claims arising out of construction of a large jet engine test facility in Tullahoma, Tennessee. The first claim arose when deep (70-foot) drilled-pier foundations intersected under ground because of the designer's failure to consider normal industry tolerances when designing neighboring caisson structures. The second claim arose from the discovery of lenses of chert, a hard substance which required the contractor to change equipment. Both cases were settled favorably to the contractor.
We represented the contractor for oil-field storage tanks in Kaparuk, Alaska, in claims against the designer. We prepared the claims, conducted negotiations, and were involved with the litigation through the discovery stages. Case was tried by Alaskan counsel, and judgment obtained against the designer.
We represented a foundation subcontractor during our case in chief, which we tried in federal court in Des Moines, Iowa. The dispute centered around the grouting of abandoned coal mines, which were over 100 feet below the site of a new waste water equalization basin. The case involved grouting methods, groundwater control, excavation and shoring, defective specifications, delays and other engineering issues.
We represented the owner of a new cement plant located in Newberry, Florida, in connection with claims brought by the BOP design builder arising out of the construction of that plant. The design builder filed an arbitration demand, seeking approximately $13 million for alleged scope changes in the mechanical and electrical disciplines, damages for production inefficiencies and delays to substantial completion allegedly caused by delayed information and late delivery of certain process equipment, delay and impact costs, and other miscellaneous claims. We counterclaimed for liquidated damages and other backcharge items. Following mediation sessions and a limited number of depositions, we favorably resolved the dispute by paying a small percentage of the amount claimed.
|
 |
|