Claim Accrual and the Continuing Claims Doctrine: Board Has Jurisdiction Over Claim Comprised of Separate and Distinct Events that Fell within the CDA’s Six-Year Statute of Limitations Period
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.03.22
In Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, ASBCA No. 62209 (a C&M case), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) held that the contractor’s claim, seeking recovery for impacts of over-and-above repair work during contract performance, was timely filed under the Contract Disputes Act’s six-year statute of limitations—rejecting an Air Force Motion for Summary Judgment and granting cross-motions filed on behalf of Lockheed Martin. Recognizing that a contractor’s claim cannot accrue before the events that fix the liability of the government, the Board held Lockheed Martin’s claim did not have a single accrual date but, rather, multiple accrual dates based upon when the government approved each repair. The Board separately held that those government approvals represented “the type of single-topic . . . yet repeated and distinct events” making Lockheed Martin’s claims timely under the well-recognized “continuing claim doctrine.”
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 08.03.26
On July 20, 2026, New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill signed the Forbidding the Algorithmic Inflation of Rent (FAIR) Act into law, making New Jersey the fourth state to regulate algorithmic rent-setting practices. Three days later, on July 23, 2026, Governor Sherrill signed the Fair Price Protection Act, which targets “surveillance pricing”—the practice of using or collecting personal data about a user and using an algorithm or artificial intelligence to charge different consumers different prices for the same products. Together, these laws represent a significant expansion of New Jersey's consumer protection framework in the algorithmic pricing context.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 08.03.26
New York Becomes First State to Restrict Addictive Social Media Features for Minors
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.03.26
Client Alert | 6 min read | 08.03.26
The Pipe, Not the Posts: How Section 230’s Protections Extend to Generative AI Platforms




