MDOT challenges contractor's claims over bridge maintenance contract issues

The recent government meeting in Michigan on April 22, 2025, focused on the ongoing legal dispute between Atsalis Brothers Painting Co. and the Department of Transportation (MDOT) regarding a contract for bridge painting. The discussions centered on several key counts in the case, particularly issues of notice, misrepresentation, and damages.

Atsalis Brothers contended that they had complied with MDOT's interpretations from the outset of the project. They argued that any claims of differing work conditions after July were irrelevant since work on the main span had already begun in June, making any notice of changes late. The company faced challenges in proving their claims, particularly regarding misrepresentation and the implied warranty of accuracy, which were deemed potentially invalid under the economic loss doctrine.

The meeting highlighted a significant dispute over the presence of a specific coating, known as Scotch code, on the bridge. MDOT maintained that they had adequately informed Atsalis Brothers about the coating's existence, while the contractor argued that the extent of the coating was misrepresented. This disagreement over the condition of the site was central to the claims of misrepresentation.

Additionally, the discussion touched on the complexities of calculating damages. Atsalis Brothers faced difficulties in tracking their costs and justifying claims for extra work, which MDOT argued were speculative. The court's interpretation of the contract indicated that the contractor might not recover much, as the termination for convenience clause limited their claims to what had been completed or incurred before the termination.

The meeting concluded with a focus on the implications of these discussions for the upcoming trial, particularly regarding the enforceability of contract rights and the potential for recovery under the various counts presented. The outcome of this case could set important precedents for similar disputes in the construction industry, particularly concerning notice requirements and the handling of differing site conditions.