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)
Smoke Without Fire: Damage from Concrete Dust Covered by Insurance
You’ve heard, “where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” In this instance, the smoke was concrete dust that damaged a warehouse full of aircraft […]
Changes Made After Substantial Completion Did Not Extend Overall Project Time
Contractors take heed – a time extension may be issued after substantial completion for specific work and the Government can still assess […]
One-Sided Construction Arbitration Clause Valid in Virginia
When it’s time to butt heads, know how the local turf (court) will interpret the clause.
Manage the Risk of Construction Changes
Almost any problem on a construction project can be traced to one of two things: changes or delays (even delays are really just changes). As in life, embrace and manage the change don’t run from it.
Want Your Profit? Prove a Constructive Change, Not a Suspension of Work.
What’s the Difference Between a Suspension of Work and a Constructive Change? For federal contractors, there are two main differences: . . .
No Special Defenses to Arbitration Agreements
Arbitration agreements, whether they are separate or part of a larger agreement, are contracts – an enforceable set of promises between parties. […]
How to Find (and Confirm) the Plain Meaning in a Contract
Contract formation confirms the parties understand and agree to all the essential terms. When that understanding and agreement fades, how do you […]
Navigating the Requirements for Claims against Virginia Public Entities
Contractors making claims against Virginia public entities must follow ALL applicable requirements. Such requirements may be found in several places, so check […]
Virginia General Contractors Not Protected from Pre-Work Claim Waivers
On March 2, 2018, the Governor approved an act of the Virginia General Assembly to make unenforceable pre-work waivers of lien rights […]










