Michael J. Mason

The firm represented one of the largest bridge builders in the country in a dispute with a surveying company over the layout of bridge abutments.  The firm’s client alleged the surveyor made an error in its calculations resulting in improper layout and construction of two abutments in reliance on the survey data and staking.

Ensuing redesign resulted in additional costs, delay, and extra work.

The survey error required a redesign and enlargement of the two bridge abutments at an increased cost for the delay and extra work.  The firm prosecuted the claims in arbitration to a successful recovery of all of the increased costs its client incurred, plus profit on the extra work, and attorneys’ fees, for a total recovery of $1.85 million.

Counsel: P. Randolph Finch Jr. and Lindsey C. Herzik

The firm represented the general contractor in a dispute with a multi-national subcontractor over the construction of 100 wind turbine generators in central California.

The project was delayed – causing the general contractor to declare the subcontractor in default.  The subcontractor claimed over $8 million in additional construction costs due to changes, weather delays, impacts, and acceleration.  The subcontractor brought arbitration against the general contractor for the increased costs.

The firm’s first task was to evaluate the merits of the parties’ positions and determine whether the case could be settled.  Based on the firm’s recommendation, the general contractor made a seven-figure statutory offer to settle the dispute.  The subcontractor rejected the settlement offer.

Discovery results in critical insights.

Through discovery, the firm learned the subcontractor had not been properly licensed, had executed certain claim releases during construction, and had not incurred the claimed acceleration costs.  Discovery took multiple years, with twenty-four depositions across the country and in Canada.  The matter proceeded to a three-week arbitration at which eighteen witnesses were called.  During arbitration, the firm successfully rebutted the subcontractor’s excessive and inflated claims.

Firm and client prevail in arbitration.

Following arbitration, the subcontractor was awarded a small percentage of its overall claim.  Most importantly, the amount awarded to the subcontractor was less than the settlement amount offered by the general contractor years before.  As a result, the arbitrator ruled the firm’s client was the prevailing party in the matter, and that the firm’s client was entitled to its attorneys’ fees and costs to defend against the claim.

In the end, the firm’s client paid nothing to the subcontractor — a result significantly better for the firm’s client than had it accepted any of the multiple settlement offers made by the subcontractor.

Counsel: P. Randolph Finch Jr., Daniel P. Scholz, and Lindsey C. Herzik