Suppose that you (the Contractor) had extra costs and want payment for those extra costs from the designer. But,
- No property was damaged,
- Nobody got hurt (thankfully), and
- There is no contract between you and the designer.
Likely Result: You cannot recover from the designer because of the economic loss doctrine, which usually applies when the facts listed above are true.
Possible Solutions:
- Carefully negotiate your scope of risk under the contract;
- Trust but verify (consider using an independent design reviewer pre- or post-bid and pre-construction);
- Manage, coordinate, and communicate; and/or
- Apply an exception to the rule (depending on which State you’re in and the unique facts of the scenario).
Here’s a recent example from the highest court of Maryland where the contractor (unfortunately) lost:
Under a contract with the City of Baltimore, the Contractor agreed to construct improvements to a wastewater treatment plant including construction of giant concrete tubs to hold untreated wastewater. The Contractor constructed the tubs per the third-party engineer’s design, but the tubs leaked. The Contractor sued the engineer for money damages, no persons were injured and no property was damaged from the leaking tubs.
The highest court in the State of Maryland denied the Contractor’s recovery from the engineer. The court denied the contractor’s request for two main reasons. First, the City, Contractor, and engineer had carefully limited their risk by the complex construction contracts, so there was no need for the court after-the-fact to adjust the limits of that risk. Second, adjusting the limits of the agreed-upon risk could result in higher costs for future public construction projects and, since public projects are often funded with taxpayers’ dollars, then taxpayers would be funding the potentially higher costs. [Editorial note: I generally agree with the court’s first reason, but find the second reason flimsy.]
Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc. v. Rummel Klepper & Kahl, LLP, 451 Md. 600 (2017)
How Short is Too Short
A limitations period is too short when it’s unreasonably short.
Construction Contracting Without Relief Clauses During COVID-19
What to do if your contract lacks the parts to handle COVID-19? Considerations for creating new contracts during COVID-19.
Your Contract Can Handle COVID-19
Uncertainty and risk are not new or novel to contractors. Contracts reduce uncertainty and share the risk of doing or providing something. COVID-19 may have contributed to, but it has not single-handedly created, uncertainty and risk.
Contractors Can Use RFI to Notify the Government
The Board (and the government) should not elevate form over substance in evaluating the sufficiency of a contractor’s notice.
Taxes Due!
It’s tax season again, so it’s time to pay the piper.
Contractor Wins when Government Reconsiders Accord
Ever had buyer’s remorse or second-guessed a decision? When the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did that, a Contractor won its claim […]
Claim Certified with Digital Signature Deemed OK
The law is not a trend-setter. It doesn’t readily change or adapt to tech. So, a commonplace practice in business became a dispute when a claimant digitally certified a claim under the Contract Disputes Act.
Acceptance and Intervening Cause Avoided Construction Warranty Claim
Like cars, computers, and appliances, construction projects include warranties too. Similarly, construction project warranties are limited to causes within the contractor’s control […]
Insurance Company Had No Duty to Defend Under Eight Corners Rule
To decide if an insurer has a duty to defend, a Virginia State or Federal Court may only look at the allegations in the complaint and the insurance policy to determine if a judgment against the insured will be covered by the policy.
