There are many ways a project owner or contractor can breach a construction contract. The following is a list of the six most common types of claims a contractor may assert against an owner or a subcontractor might make against a prime contractor:

1. Payment claims: One very common dispute is where the owner fails to timely pay the prime contractor or the prime contractor does not pay a subcontractor on time. Cash flow is very important in construction. If the owner does not timely pay the prime contractor, then the prime contractor may have difficulty paying its subcontractors and the subcontractors may not be able to pay their sub-subcontractors and/or suppliers.

Many times, payment disputes turn on whether the owner had a valid reason for withholding funds from the contractor. For example, if the contractor has submitted a payment application for deficient work, then the owner should not have an obligation to pay for that work. But if it turns out that the work was not deficient, then the owner may have breached the contractor by not timely paying the contractor.


Continue Reading The Six Most Common Contractor Claims

Two contract provisions that are frequently litigated in construction disputes are no-damages-for-delay and liquidated damages clauses. A no-damages-for-delay clause typically provides that if there is a delay caused by the owner or others, the contractor will not be entitled to any additional compensation for that delay. It is a clause that project owners love because it limits their liability for delays on the project.

Similarly, a liquidated damages clause is an owner-preferred contract provision that usually sets a fixed amount for which the contractor is liable to the owner if the project is not finished on time. Often, the amount is set as a certain sum of money per day the project is late (e.g., $1,000 per day). The Florida Second District Court of Appeal recently addressed both those provisions in an opinion it issued in January 2022.

Continue Reading Florida Court Finds No-Damages-for-Delay and Liquidated Damages Clauses Unenforceable

Many construction payment disputes come down to one key question—who is responsible for extra costs incurred while building a project? Parties frequently have competing breach-of-contract actions that focus on who is liable. But a recent federal court case shows that you should not give short shrift to the damages that flow from the alleged breach.

In Barlovento, LLC v. AUI, Inc., Civ. No. 18-1112 GJF/JHR, 2021 WL 3879072 (D.N.M. Aug. 31, 2021), the United States Air Force awarded a general contractor a $5.5 million contract to renovate a taxiway at a military base. The general contractor then subcontracted the removal and replacement of the taxiway pavement and base course. This required the subcontractor to place three layers – subgrade, base course, and concrete.

The subcontractor fell behind in its performance of the work, and ultimately, the general contractor held a meeting with the subcontractor and a potential replacement subcontractor that would perform almost all the remaining work. At that meeting, the general contractor announced that it would take the concrete paving work away from the subcontractor. Despite the decision to de-scope the original subcontractor, the general contractor ended up terminating the subcontractor for default.

Continue Reading General Contractor Awarded $22,000 of Its $1.3 Million Claim Against a Subcontractor

In United States ex rel. Aarow/IET LLC v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, an electrical subcontractor sued a general contractor and the payment bond surety for $2.9 million in additional labor costs incurred on a federal government project. The subcontractor alleged that the general contractor mismanaged the project and disrupted the subcontractor’s work. The general contractor filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court granted because, among other reasons, the trial court believed that a no-damages-for-delay clause in the parties’ contract barred the subcontractor’s claim.

Continue Reading Court Concludes No-Damages-for-Delay Clause Did Not Bar Subcontractor’s Disruption Claim