The $80 million represented Lane's proportionate share of capital contributions that Skanska and Granite Construction Company had to cover to keep the project operational after Lane stopped funding.
The dispute centered on a joint venture called SGL, formed by Skanska, Granite, and Lane to expand Interstate 4 between Tampa and Daytona Beach. The project, described in the opinion as Florida's largest and most expensive construction project to date, initially projected $255 million in profit but fell more than half a billion dollars into the red due to hurricanes, inflation, labor shortages, and geological hazards including a massive sinkhole.
As losses grew, Lane proposed abandoning construction. Circuit Judge Tjoflat wrote that "Lane knew SGL had no right to abandon ship, but its lawyers claimed they had concocted a legal theory to escape without liability." The court noted that Skanska found the proposal "too risky" because "Lane's proposal rested on a series of tenuous legal assumptions, and if even one failed, SGL could face uncapped damages."
Lane then alleged that Skanska harbored a conflict of interest because a Skanska sister company was financing the construction and stood to receive $75 million annually in maintenance payments. When Skanska refused to pursue Lane's termination strategy, Lane sued for breach of fiduciary duty and stopped funding mandatory capital calls.
After a ten-day bench trial, the district court held that Skanska exhibited no dual loyalty and acted in SGL's best interest. It ordered Lane to pay $80 million for refusing to fund the venture while litigation pended.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Circuit Judge Tjoflat wrote that Lane's conflict-of-interest theory was "unsupportable."
The court noted that successful Florida plaintiffs are entitled to prejudgment interest "as a matter of law," and that "anything else fails to make the plaintiff whole and allows the defendant to profit from his breach."
The case is The Lane Construction Corporation v. Skanska USA Civil Southeast Inc., No. 24-12638, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.