Supreme Court Holds Disputed and Unliquidated Amounts May Be Included in Verified Statements of Claim; Limits Forfeiture Penalty to Statutory Remedies Only
BOULDER, Colo. – (April 6, 2026) –The Colorado Supreme Court today issued a unanimous opinion in Ralph L. Wadsworth Construction Company, LLC v. Regional Rail Partners, 2026 CO 19, reversing the Colorado Court of Appeals and ruling in favor of BHGR’s client, Ralph L. Wadsworth Construction Company. A copy of the opinion can be found [here]. The decision resolves two important questions under Colorado’s Public Works Act, §§ 38-26-101 to -110, C.R.S., with significant implications for contractors, subcontractors, and material suppliers throughout the state.
Background
The dispute arose from Wadsworth’s work as a subcontractor on the Regional Transportation District’s North Metro Rail Line project connecting Thornton and Denver’s Union Station — a public works project valued at over $343 million. After experiencing significant project delays and disruptions, Wadsworth filed a verified statement of claim with RTD under the Public Works Act seeking approximately $12.8 million in unpaid costs, including delay and disruption damages calculated by a retained expert. The general contractor challenged the claim as excessive and argued that Wadsworth had forfeited all rights to recovery under the Act. Following a ten-day bench trial, the trial court found in Wadsworth’s favor and awarded over $5.6 million in damages and unpaid construction funds. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that Wadsworth’s claim was excessive as a matter of law and that Wadsworth had forfeited its right to recovery under any legal theory.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling
In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Gabriel, the Colorado Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals on both issues presented.
First, the Court held that disputed or unliquidated amounts, including delay and disruption damages, may lawfully be included in a verified statement of claim under the Public Works Act, provided the amounts represent costs for labor, materials, sustenance, rental machinery, tools, equipment, or other supplies used in the prosecution of the work, and are not otherwise excessive under section 38-26-110. The Court rejected the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that only undisputed, liquidated amounts could be claimed, finding that reading supported neither the plain language of the statute nor its purpose of protecting subcontractors on public works projects.
Second, the Court held that a claimant who files an excessive verified statement of claim forfeits only its statutory rights and remedies under the Public Works Act — not all legal rights and remedies otherwise available at law. Drawing on the parallel structure of the Mechanics’ Lien Act and the legislative history of the Public Works Act, the Court concluded that the legislature intended the forfeiture provision to deter bad-faith claims, not to strip subcontractors of all avenues of recovery based on a mistaken exercise of their statutory rights.
The Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to address the additional issues Wadsworth raised in its cross-appeal that the division did not reach.
Implications for Colorado’s Construction Industry
The decision has significant ramifications for both public and private construction projects in Colorado:
For subcontractors on public projects, the decision confirms that a verified statement of claim is a broad protective remedy. Subcontractors may include good-faith claims for delay damages, disruption costs, and other disputed amounts without fear that doing so will render the claim excessive, as long as those amounts relate to labor, materials, or other supplies used in the prosecution of the work and the claimant has a reasonable basis for believing the amounts are due.
For general contractors and project owners, the decision clarifies that the excessive claim penalty is a targeted deterrent against bad-faith filings, not a trap that strips a claimant of all legal recourse. This should encourage resolution of disputes on the merits rather than through procedural forfeiture arguments.
For private construction projects, the Court’s analysis reinforces longstanding precedent under the Mechanics’ Lien Act that an excessive lien results only in forfeiture of lien rights, not all legal remedies. The Court’s discussion of the parallel structure between the two statutes provides additional authority for contractors and subcontractors defending against excessive lien challenges on private projects.
Practically speaking, the decision is a reminder that contractors and subcontractors should document their claims carefully and ensure that amounts included in a verified statement of claim or mechanics’ lien are supported by a reasonable basis with reference to the statutes that frame what can be included in such claims. Retention of an expert to quantify the claimant’s damages is advisable. While the Court confirmed that disputed amounts may be included, section 38-26-110 remains in effect and a claim may still be found excessive if it is for more than the amount due, there is no reasonable possibility the amount is due, and the claimant knows the amount exceeds what is owed.
BHGR’s Role
BHGR partners Giovanni M. Ruscitti, Jack P. Storti, and Lawrence Myers represented Wadsworth at the trial court level, which resulted in a judgement in Wadsworth’s favor.
Later, BHGR partners Giovanni M. Ruscitti, Jack P. Storti, Lawrence Myers, and Rudy Verner represented Wadsworth before the Colorado Supreme Court, with Rudy Verner presenting oral argument before the Court on November 19, 2025.
BHGR’s construction practice group regularly advises contractors, subcontractors, and owners on public and private construction disputes throughout Colorado. The firm’s appellate practice group handles appeals in state and federal courts throughout the country. For more information, please contact the firm at 303.402.1600 or info@bhgrlaw.com.
Direct Quotes:
“This decision is a significant victory for contractors and subcontractors who perform public works in Colorado. The Court recognized that the Public Works Act was designed to protect those who supply labor and materials to public projects, and that reading the statute to bar disputed or unliquidated claims — or to strip a contractor of all legal remedies for an inadvertent overstatement — would undermine that core purpose.”
- Giovanni Ruscitti, lead trial counsel, Berg Hill Greenleaf Ruscitti LLP
“Presenting this case before the Colorado Supreme Court was a significant opportunity to clarify protections that contractors and subcontractors rely on every day. The Court’s ruling confirms that the Public Works Act is remedial in nature and that those who provide labor and materials to public projects have a meaningful avenue for recovery, including for the very real costs that delays and disruptions cause. We are proud to have secured this outcome for Wadsworth and believe it will benefit the broader construction community in Colorado for years to come.”
- Rudy E. Verner, lead appellate counsel, Berg Hill Greenleaf Ruscitti LLP
Learn more about LAW member Berg Hill Greenleaf Ruscitti LLP from Boulder, CO, US.