/>iWe previously blogged about the hotly contested dispute between AECOM and FlatIron involving the I-70 construction project outside of Denver. After an 18-day trial, the jury returned a verdict last month for plaintiff AECOM on its breach of contract claim. Interestingly, the size of the jury’s verdict, roughly $5 million, was consistent with FlatIron’s attempted confession of judgment before trial. With regards to FlatIron’s counterclaims, the jury returned a verdict for AECOM. As you may recall, FlatIron’s counterclaim sought over $250 million using the Modified Total Cost Method. The court refused to prohibit FlatIron’s use of the Modified Total Cost Method over AECOM’s objections. The court also refused to exclude evidence that FlatIron had sought the same damages from other parties. Whatever may have persuaded the jury, the end result was a $5 million verdict for AECOM on its claims, and $0 for FlatIron on its claims.
The court has since denied FlatIron’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. In that motion, FlatIron argued that AECOM’s breach of contract claim failed because it sought compensation for work that AECOM did not have written authorization to perform as required under the contract. AECOM argued that FlatIron had waived the written authorization requirement through its course of conduct during the job, including by submitting upstream claims to CDOT without the required written authorization. The trial court agreed that FlatIron had waived its right to enforce the written authorization requirement and rejected FlatIron’s other grounds for relief. A copy of the court’s decision is available here. A final judgment on the jury’s verdict was entered on April 2, 2024.
