Application of the Spearin Doctrine Entitles Contractor to Recover FCA Litigation Costs
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.07.20
In Tolliver Group, Inc v. U.S. (Jan. 22, 2020), the Court of Federal Claims granted summary judgment in favor of a contractor who sought reimbursement of legal fees incurred in successfully defending against a False Claims Act (FCA) suit filed by a relator. The qui tam action arose from a defect in the original contract—the government was contractually obligated to provide certain technical data that it could not provide and the contractor was required to certify that its performance was in compliance with the technical data.
After the Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the FCA suit, the contractor submitted a claim to recover a portion of its legal fees, which the contracting officer denied. The Court of Federal Claims ruled in favor of the contractor under the Spearin doctrine, which provides that if the government supplies defective specifications, then a contractor may recover costs flowing from the government’s breach of the implied warranty that satisfactory performance will result from adherence to the contract specifications. One exception to the Spearin doctrine is that the warranty does not extend to third-party claims. However, the court held that a qui tam suit is not an excepted third-party claim, because “in qui tam litigation ‘it is the government, not the individual relator, who is the real plaintiff in the suit.’” The Tolliver decision illuminates a new basis for recovery of litigation costs after defending against qui tam actions.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.17.26
From Checkout To Opt-Out: The EU Withdrawal Button Is Here – What E-Commerce Businesses Need To Know
From June 19, 2026, all online traders active within the EU are required to provide a “withdrawal button” on their websites and apps. The introduction of this withdrawal button represents a significant shift in the online consumer cancellation landscape. In this alert, we provide an overview of what this requirement means in practice and why compliance is so important.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 06.17.26
Client Alert | 6 min read | 06.16.26
What United States v. Bankman-Fried Means for Health Care Fraud Defense
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.15.26
Kansas Federal Court Applies “Selective Enforcement” Theory to Reject DTSA Claim




