The Lane Construction Corporation v. Skanska USA Civil Southeast, Inc.

── The Lane Construction Corporation v. Skanska USA Civil Southeast, Inc. ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 15, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 24-12638 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 04/15/2026 Page: 1 of 49 FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-12638 ____________________ THE LANE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, a Connecticut corporation, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant Cross Defendant-Appellant, versus SKANSKA USA CIVIL SOUTHEAST, INC., a Virginia corporation, Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee, GRANITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Intervenor Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee, SALINI IMPREGILO S.P.A. Counter Defendant, WEBUILD S.P.A. INC., f.k.a. Salini Impregilo S.P.A., Inc., Counter Defendant-Appellant, USCA11 Case: 24-12638 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 04/15/2026 Page: 2 of 49 2 Opinion of the Court 24-12638 SKANSKA-GRANITE-LANE, A JOINT VENTURE, Counter Defendant-Cross Claimant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 6:21-cv-00164-RBD-DCI ____________________ Before NEWSOM, BRASHER, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges. TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge: Not all ventures strike gold; some strike sinkholes. Such was the case for a private group of contractors who shouldered Flor- ida’s largest and most expensive construction project to date. The task was to expand and revamp Florida’s Interstate 4 highway (“I-4”), which runs between Tampa and Daytona Beach. Three contractors—Skanska USA Civil Southeast, Inc. (“Skanska”), Granite Construction Company (“Granite”), and The Lane Con- struction Company (“Lane”)—formed a joint venture (“SGL”) to take on the job. SGL secured a winning bid of $2.3 billion, project- ing some $255 million in profit. But hurricanes, inflation, a labor shortage, and a series of unfortunate events turned profit-seeking into loss-mitigation. SGL soon found itself more than half a billion dollars in the red. A few years into the project, Lane pitched the idea of ditch- ing construction altogether. Lane knew SGL had no right to aban- don ship, but its lawyers claimed they had concocted a legal theory to escape without liability. Alternatively, Lane and its lawyers USCA11 Case: 24-12638 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 04/15/2026 Page: 3 of 49 24-12638 Opinion of the Court 3 suggested SGL threaten to walk away as a negotiation tactic. Either option would put a stop to the bleeding, or so Lane argued. Skanska found it too risky. Lane’s proposal rested on a series of tenuous legal assumptions, and if even one failed, SGL could face uncapped damages. Successful or not, the reputational dam- age would be untold. But to Lane, Skanska’s concern was a mere façade overlaying an odious conflict of interest. Skanska’s sister company was financing the construction in exchange for milestone payments and an exclusive maintenance agreement worth $75 mil-