Contracting Officer's Final Decision Not Afforded RES Judicata Status
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 05.10.04
In Roxco, Ltd. v. United States (Mar. 29, 2004), the COFC, among other things, rejected the Air Force's argument that Roxco's equitable adjustment claims, which were submitted more than a year after the Contracting Officer's default termination decision, should be barred through the application of res judicata, even if, as the Air Force asserted, those claims could have been raised as defenses to the default termination. The COFC reasoned that an extension of res judicata to contracting officers' final decisions would contradict the Contract Disputes Act's six-year statutory time limit for filing claims.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 06.01.26
California Court Upholds Insurer’s Duty to Defend After Covered Claim Is Dismissed
On April 30, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a significant ruling in an insurance coverage dispute between a commercial general liability insurer and its policyholder. The decision addresses several critical issues in insurance law, including the scope and continuity of the duty to defend and the standard for insurer reimbursement of defense costs in mixed-claim actions. The court ruled largely in favor of the insured, SVO Building One, LLC ("SVO"), and the matter now heads toward settlement or trial on SVO's remaining counterclaims.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.29.26
California Assembly Passes AB 1776, Sending Major Antitrust Bill to the Senate
Client Alert | 5 min read | 05.29.26
Clover Insurance v. HHS: S.D. of Georgia Holds 20 Star Ratings Measures Unlawful
Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.29.26
