The plaintiff, a construction company, sued the contracting authority for EUR 30,000 for COVID-related additional costs for protective masks, disinfectants and the additional expenditure due to a drop in performance as a result of the mask obligation. The additional costs were based on a construction engineering expert opinion, which did not contain any calculations specific to the facts at hand, but only abstract calculations on the usual drop in performance and related costs.
In a leading decision on the distribution of risks and the proof of additional costs in construction projects, the Supreme Court stated that additional expenses must also be specifically quantified and proven by plaintiff. An abstract expert opinion, albeit methodically correct, cannot replace this burden of proof.
Read Jakob Widner’s article on this here or in the Litigation Newsletter of the International Law Office.
