Both companies asked U.S. District Court Judge Andrea R. Wood to rule on the matter before a jury trial, and in March 2023 she decided in Black & Veatch's favor. All that was left was for jurors to decide how much Boldt owed Black & Veatch.

After a three-week trial ending last November, the jury awarded Black & Veatch one solitary dollar.  

That has sent the already five-year-long lawsuit over the 150-MW Cardinal Point wind farm into the judicial equivalent of extra innings, but not for the usual reason of an appeal based on a trial error. The jurors seemed to be casting shade on Wood's perspective that Black & Veatch was in the right.

In a reply to one of several recent motions, Wood wrote that now "the parties have a dispute as to whether [Black & Veatch] is properly considered a prevailing party."

Wood's summary judgment ruling combined with the jury's $1 verdict essentially stranded Boldt's original claim for damages from Black & Veatch in what one attorney described as a legal "no man's land." 

To keep its claim alive, Boldt filed a new lawsuit in April for $6 million—$5 million in costs and $1 million in interest—that the contractor claims it is owed. The parties will get together with Wood on Jan. 23 to try to sort things out.

Neither Boldt nor Black & Veatch would comment on the ongoing litigation.

Nominal damages, which is how attorneys describe a $1 award, are sometimes actually sought by plaintiffs in different types of lawsuits as symbols of a ruling in their favor when no actual money damages are sought, writes attorney Lesley Folk on the website LegalMatch. Nominal damages, she says, may "prove that the plaintiff had a legal right to file the lawsuit" or that "the defendant’s behavior was wrong."

But they are "especially rare in contract cases," Folk continued, "because the majority of breach-of-contract claims generally involve some economic monetary loss to the plaintiff."

Before the jury damage award, the trial seemed like a clear victory for Black & Veatch via Wood's summary judgment ruling.

Capital Power, an Edmonton, Alberta-based wind power developer, had hired Black & Veatch under a $68-million contract to construct 60 General Electric-manufactured wind turbines on a 20,000-acre site in Good Hope, Ill. Black & Veatch in turn hired Appleton, Wis.-based Boldt to erect the turbines, each generating 2.5 MW, under a $15-million subcontract.

A dispute drags on over the Cardinal Point wind power project. Photo: Keith Turrill/Alamy 

The accusations and counter-accusations give some sense of the difficulties the companies have experienced in the field and with each other. Boldt said its work fell behind schedule because of Black & Veatch's failure to provide suitable crane pads, access roads and site laydown areas. Those responsibilities were "consistent with [Black & Veatch's obligations under the contract," wrote Wood.

Boldt also blamed GE's delayed and incomplete deliveries of turbine parts for the remainder of the delay. Boldt claimed that it had erected or partly erected many of the turbines but that Black & Veatch never paid it for work covered by a final invoice. Black & Veatch contended, however, that Boldt was the sole cause of delay to the project. It said it had to go to considerable expense to hurry to finish the work on time.

In its initial reply to Boldt's complaint, Black & Veatch denied that Boldt had erected completely even a single wind turbine. It said its preparation of the erection sites for each turbine was done according to plans shared with Boldt. Black & Veatch disputed Boldt's claim that Black & Veatch was "obligated to set up the work sites and crane pads and coordinate equipment deliveries so that the equipment parts arrived 'under the [crane] hook,' within the working radii of Boldt’s cranes.

Black & Veatch admitted that some components arrived late and out of order. 

But it denied that there were soft soils conditions at the crane pads, that foundation back-fill practices were improper and that crane pads were weakened. While about one-half of the pads were installed over back-filled areas, "the tower foundations were properly backfilled and compacted and each compacted lift was tested for bearing capacity before proceeding with further backfilling," Black & Veatch stated.

Black & Veatch Appeared to Win

In April 2023, shortly after Judge Wood's summary judgment ruling in Black & Veatch's favor, it seemed that the Overland Park, Kan.-based company was likely to win substantial compensation for its extra costs.

The apparent victory was based on details in the contract.

In granting summary judgment for Black & Veatch, Wood found that Boldt had not followed the procedures for delays that were spelled out in its contract with Black & Veatch. That firm had followed contractual guidelines, she said.

Boldt's subcontract required it to provide initial notice within five days of learning about a delay event and a second notice within 20 days of learning of an "actual, demonstrable delay," noted John Mark Goodman, an attorney with the Bradley law firm who commented on the case at the time.

"While Boldt provided the initial five-day notice, it failed to provide the second more detailed 20-day notice" to get cost and schedule relief, Goodman pointed out. "In contrast, the court found that Black & Veatch gave proper notice of default" and fully complied with the contract's termination-for-cause procedures, he wrote.

At that point, Black & Veatch's claim was heading for trial at which a jury could have—depending on its opinion of the evidence—ordered Boldt to pay damages of several million.

This article was updated July 2 to reflect the fact that the trial took three weeks, not four days as previously reported.