Dewatering in Nevada
Ames Constr. v. Clark County, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112426
Clark County contracted with Ames Construction for a project
to build a flood wash to mitigate flooding in Las Vegas, but the
contractor did not anticipate flooding on the project site itself.
The contract stated the flow of water through the project site was
nine cubic feet per second (cfs); Ames’ price and dewatering plan
allotted for conditions of up to 13 cfs. Worked commenced and the
project site was overwhelmed with water, measured at points to be
over 10,000 cfs. The County knew of the flooding potential on the
RISK MANAGEMENT
site but never disclosed that information to Ames. Ames finished
the project but at a significant additional expense. Yet, despite its
misrepresentation of the water flow, the County rejected Ames’
claim for $14,000,000 for the extra costs for material, equipment,
time and additional repairs necessitated by the increased water
flow (the original contract was for $20,440,000).
The County’s primary defense to Ames’ claim was that the contractor
had a contractual duty to investigate the site (a frequent
contract clause that should be aggressively negotiated) and by
failing to do so, it forfeited its right to bring the claims. However,
lightwise/123RF
I AGREED
TO WHAT?
Who is liable for additional construction costs
caused by differing site conditions?
By Susan M. White, Esq. and Richard D. Kalson, Esq., Benesh Law
www.piledrivers.org PILEDRIVER | 85
/profile_lightwise
/www.piledrivers.org
