A recent Maine Superior Court decision, US Rental v. Wentworth Partners & Associates et al., offers a useful reminder for owners, contractors, and design professionals: imperfect repairs and minor deviations from design plans do not necessarily shift the blame in construction defect disputes.
Project background: A structural problem emerges
An owner constructing a large lodge in Kingfield, Maine hired a structural engineer to design key structural components, including steel beams supporting the floors. Construction of the steel frame began in 2017.
In 2019, the owner reported vibration in the dining room floor and asked the structural engineer to evaluate the issue and recommend a solution. The engineer proposed a repair using a rod and turnbuckle system that would involve adding a steel plate on the inside of each of the columns. However, the repair was never fully completed.
Multiple repair attempts—and continued failure
In 2023, the structural engineer proposed a second remedial design, including modifying the beam-to-column connections and adding supplemental plates. The contractor hired by the owner to do the repairs used heavier beams than were called for by the structural engineer’s designs.
This attempt at repair was unsuccessful. In May 2024, the structural engineer issued another revised design. The repairs were made in accordance with the structural engineer’s plan, except larger beams were used than those detailed in the plan.
Despite repeated attempts to remediate the structural issues, the building frame did not meet relevant code requirements. The columns showed increased deflection, connections worsened, and rafters began to buckle.
The owner ultimately commenced a professional negligence action against the structural engineer, seeking to recover costs incurred as a result of the failed designs.
The Structural Engineer’s Defense
The engineer argued it was not responsible for the costs because the owner had broken the casual chain in two ways:
- by not completing the initial recommended repair
- by deviating from the engineer’s recommended design by using different sized beams.
The engineer also attacked the owner’s damages as speculative, even though the owner provided detailed claims for incurred costs and anticipated future repair expenses.
The Court’s Analysis
The court denied the motion for summary judgment, meaning they found enough disputed facts that they believed a jury—not a judge—should decide who is responsible. The case was sent to a jury, highlighting a few key points:
- Not finishing a recommended repair does not automatically shift blame. The court held that a jury could determine the failure to fully implement the first fix did not break the chain of responsibility, especially if the engineer bore responsibility for implementing or overseeing the completion of that work.
- Small deviations from the designs don’t necessarily let designers off the hook. The use of different beam sizes did not automatically relieve the structural engineer of liability. A jury could view those changes as de minimis and conclude the damages remained a foreseeable consequence of the underlying design issues.
- Damages can be estimates as long as they are supported.
The owner presented detailed, itemized damages, including:
- Costs already incurred to investigate and remediate the structural issues;
- Labor, welding, and equipment rental expenses;
- Engineering and contractor costs;
- Estimated future remediation costs, including correcting deficient columns;
- Redesign and replacement work (including ceilings); and
- Anticipated contractor overhead and profit.
The court allowed the claims to proceed, finding that the damages were itemized and supported by evidence, and that the projections were based on identifiable work and costs—not mere speculation.
Key takeaways for owners, contractors, and design professionals
This case highlights how fact-intensive construction litigation cases often are, making courts reluctant to resolve proximate cause on summary judgment.
Critically, this case also reinforces that repairs not performed in accordance with design plans, particularly those that are de minimis, will not necessarily shield a design professional from liability. Detailed, evidence-based cost projections can sustain a damage claim even before all repair work is complete. For owners and contractors maintaining detailed cost records and engaging qualified experts continues to be essential to well-supported damages claims.
Maggie Shields is a construction and commercial litigation attorney who advises owners, developers, and contractors on contract drafting and negotiation, risk mitigation, and dispute resolution, representing clients in litigation and alternative dispute proceedings with a practical, detail-oriented approach focused on efficient outcomes. She can be reached at [email protected].
Bernstein Shur’s Construction Group helps developers, contractors, and construction professionals manage risk and keep projects on track at every stage of the project lifecycle. The group provides sophisticated legal solutions spanning contract negotiation, project administration, dispute avoidance, and litigation, drawing on deep experience in the construction industry.