Construction Litigation Matters
With more than 20 years of litigation experience, Kevin is well prepared to handle virtually any dispute in the construction industry. The following are a few examples of his work:
- Representing a downtown office tower in an action against a curtain wall installer and manufacturer, arising out of leaks.
- Representing a municipality in claims against design professionals, arising out of the design of a geothermal HVAC system.
- Representing five contractors in Chapter 128 lien priority disputes arising out of partially completed construction project in downtown Milwaukee. Case involves priority of construction lienholders vs. claimants claiming superpriority status under Wis. Stats. §706.11, and scope and interpretation of lien waivers.
- Representing a health care institution in construction matters against a design professional and owner’s representative, arising out of a multiple-location expansion project.
- Representing a low bidder on a $60 million I-94 highway reconstruction project, and defeating the bid protest by the second-low bidder, who claimed that the low bid was materially unbalanced.
- Representing a bridge contractor pursuing delay damage claims against a steel supplier whose late delivery of steel caused a delay on a project.
- Representing a real estate developer who purchased a shopping center from a seller who fraudulently failed to disclose the presence of corrosive roof insulation. The case included the interplay between “as is” clauses within real estate contracts and affirmative misrepresentations made by sellers.
- Representing a paving contractor in arbitration with a residential developer, where the issue involves the impact of the developer’s failure to finish the course of the roadway for multiple years on the obligations of the parties.
- Representing a government contractor in proceedings in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and Wisconsin State Court. Issues involved the propriety of a Contracting Officer’s Final Decision, issues of defective design, and the impact of defense tender rejections under indemnification agreements and additional insured endorsements.
- Representing a roofing system manufacturer against allegations of design and manufacturing defects resulting in leaks.
- Representing and obtaining summary judgment dismissal in favor of a developer/general contractor who was sued for lack of tar paper under portions of residential roofs. Dismissal was based on the statute of limitations and economic loss doctrine grounds.
- Representing an owner in a two-week American Arbitration Association construction arbitration against its general contractor, regarding an office tower construction dispute. The case was tried to a three-judge panel in Milwaukee and involved duties owed under AIA “A111 Cost-Plus with a GMP” contract, delay damages, slander of title, theft-by-contractor, and construction accounting.
- Representing a bridge contractor against allegations that the contractor negligently cut a telephone line where line location was misidentified by other parties.
- Representing an insurance broker in a complicated construction lawsuit pending in the Western District of Pennsylvania, arising out of the construction of a steel mill. Allegations against our client involved administration of an owner-controlled insurance program and reporting requirement under professional liability policy.
- Representing the owner in a construction dispute arising out of a water main break at a corporate campus. The case was settled on favorable grounds shortly before trial in Milwaukee County.
- Obtaining dismissal of two separate claims brought against our client, a manufacturer of Exterior Insulation Finish Systems (EIFS), in Wisconsin Circuit Court. Dismissals were based on application of the economic loss doctrine to construction claims. One dismissal was affirmed on appeal in Mequon Medical Associates v. Sto Corp., Case No. 02-2635 (unpublished op. 9/4/03). The other was not appealed.
- Representing the owners in two separate trials in Outagamie County, Wisconsin, arising out of defective roofing materials. The case went to jury on contract and tort theories, with the client recovering substantial awards in both cases.