case study
case studies Business & Commercial Litigation

Construction Delay Damages

Challenge:

Our client, a commercial construction company, incurred major delay costs when building a shopping center after the county government required the owner to drill a utility line under a busy road instead of cutting through the pavement. This work was not contemplated by the plans or included in the budget. The owner refused to compensate the contractor for its extended overhead and costs, arguing that the contractor should have anticipated the change.

Strategy:

We demanded arbitration pursuant to the contract and hired an expert witness experienced in project scheduling to explain the critical path method (CPM) for the project.  At the arbitration hearing, our expert was superior to the owner’s expert and laid out the reasons for the delay and effect on the agreed schedule. The client then explained the substantial costs incurred by a four-week delay.

Result:

A three-member arbitration panel rendered a total award for our client. When we recorded the award as a judgment in the circuit court, the owner kept fighting. They filed a motion to vacate the award under the limited grounds permitted by the Uniform Arbitration Act. The court denied the motion and affirmed the award.

DISCLAIMER: THE CASES AND RESULTS DESCRIBED HEREIN ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF PAST RESULTS OBTAINED BY MILLER, MILLER & CANBY, AND ITS ATTORNEYS. PAST CASE RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE FUTURE RESULTS. ALL CASES ARE DISTINCT AND HAVE UNIQUE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEGAL QUESTIONS THAT MUST BE CONSIDERED AND EVALUATED ON THEIR OWN MERIT.

RELATED CASE STUDIES