Get a direct initial read on the issue.
If this issue matches what you are dealing with, start with a short, non-confidential summary. For qualifying serious matters, contingency may be available once the claim and economics are assessed.
1. Timing is often as important as scope
In a project-loss dispute, timing can drive the economics as much as the physical damage itself. A delay in repair or replacement may extend financing carry, defer completion, disrupt downstream work, or affect revenue and transaction timing.
That is why “when” the loss happened, how the delay is measured, and what the realistic recovery path looks like can matter just as much as the raw repair estimate.
2. Soft costs can materially change the real value of the claim
Large project losses are rarely just about hard costs. They may also involve financing costs, extended general conditions, additional professional fees, remobilization costs, schedule disruption, and other project-level economic consequences.
If those categories are ignored or framed too narrowly, the claim can be materially undervalued even when the physical damage itself is recognized.
3. Code and upgrade issues can reshape the loss
A serious project loss may not be solved by restoring the damaged work to its exact prior condition. Code requirements, redesign, replacement standards, and sequencing changes can expand the real cost of getting the project back on track.
These issues matter because they often affect both scope and time. And once they affect scope and time, they affect money.
4. Builder’s risk and project-loss disputes often overlap with broader project pressure
A project loss may sit inside a larger story: delayed turnover, missed milestones, financing pressure, purchaser or tenant expectations, or a construction relationship already under strain.
When that happens, the insurance problem cannot be handled as if it exists in isolation. The real task is to understand how the claim interacts with the larger project and how the record is being shaped while those pressures continue to move.
5. Reconstruction strategy and claim strategy need to be aligned
One of the easiest ways to lose value in a project-loss claim is to let the reconstruction path and the claim path diverge.
If the project team is making practical decisions without a coherent claim strategy, the insurer may end up defining the loss narrative by default. If the claim is being framed without enough operational grounding, the presentation may stop making business sense. The strongest matters usually align the reconstruction story, the timing story, and the economic story before the file hardens.
When focused special counsel often makes sense
Focused special counsel often makes sense when the project loss is large enough that timing, soft costs, code issues, or reconstruction strategy materially affect recovery. That is especially true when the matter sits inside builder’s risk, delay, or project-completion pressure and the claim needs to be built in a way that reflects the real economics of the project, not just the easiest line items to discuss.
Why owners, fiduciaries, and referral counsel call Burnside.
Kelly McCann’s background combines finance training, construction cost-estimating work, legal training, and graduate real-estate study. He has recovered millions of dollars for property owners through trial, arbitration, and settlement.
Illustrative project-loss scenario where scope is not the whole story
Soft costs, code, delay, and reconstruction timing can move the economics faster than the headline repair number.
Useful when the claim has to be built around the property or project economics rather than around raw line items alone.
The file gets clearer when timing, reconstruction strategy, and claim strategy stay aligned.
Illustrative scenarios are shown in summary form only. They are not client descriptions and do not guarantee outcomes.