Ralph L. Wadsworth Construction Company, LLC v. Regional Rail Partners – Decided April 6, 2026
On Monday, April 6, 2026, the Colorado Supreme Court 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 project and dispute
Berg Hill Greenleaf Ruscitti LLP represented Ralph L. Wadsworth Construction Company, LLC, a subcontractor on RTD’s North Metro Rail Line project connecting Thornton to Denver’s Union Station. The original subcontract was valued at $29 million and grew to over $60 million through change orders. The project encountered significant delays and disruptions, prompting Wadsworth to retain an expert who calculated approximately $12.4 million in resulting damages. Wadsworth filed a verified statement of claim with RTD for roughly $12.8 million, which included those expert-calculated amounts plus additional costs that accrued after the report was completed.
The trial court ruling
After a ten-day bench trial, the Denver District Court found that Wadsworth’s verified statement of claim was not excessive and that there was a reasonable possibility the claimed amount was due. The trial court awarded Wadsworth over $3.7 million in delay and disruption damages and over $1.9 million in unpaid construction funds — a total of approximately $5.7 million.
The Court of Appeals reversal
Regional Rail appealed, and a division of the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the entire award. The division held that a verified statement of claim may only include undisputed, liquidated amounts — and because Wadsworth’s claim contained delay and disruption damages that were actively contested, it was necessarily excessive. The division further held that section 38-26-110’s penalty for filing an excessive claim was absolute: Wadsworth had forfeited not only its statutory remedies under the Public Works Act, but every legal avenue for recovery, including its common law breach of contract claim.
The ruling threatened to wipe out the entire $5.7 million award and left subcontractors statewide facing the prospect of losing all compensation whenever a verified statement of claim was later deemed excessive — even in good faith. The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to address both questions.
THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT RULING
Disputed and unliquidated amounts are permissible
The Supreme Court held unanimously that nothing in the plain language of section 38-26-107 prohibits disputed or unliquidated amounts from being included in a verified statement of claim. What matters is whether the claimed amounts represent labor, materials, sustenance, rental machinery, tools, equipment, or other supplies used in the prosecution of the work — and whether the claim satisfies the standards of section 38-26-110. Delay and disruption damages that drive up actual project costs fall squarely within those categories.
Forfeiture is limited to statutory remedies only
The Court also rejected the Court of Appeals’ all-or-nothing interpretation of the forfeiture penalty. Tracing the Public Works Act’s origins as a statute designed to mirror the General Mechanics’ Lien Act for public projects, the Court noted that the Mechanics’ Lien Act’s parallel forfeiture provision has long been construed to forfeit only lien rights — not all legal rights and remedies. The legislative history of the 2003 amendments confirm that the legislature intended the same limited scope for the Public Works Act.
Under the Court’s holding, a claimant who knowingly files an excessive claim forfeits only the rights and remedies created by the Public Works Act—i.e., the right to establish a lien against retained funds and submit a claim against a substitution bond. Common law claims for breach of contract and other remedies outside the Act remain intact.
KEY TAKEAWAYS FOR CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS
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 Larry Myers represented Wadsworth at the trial court level, which resulted in a judgment in Wadsworth’s favor.
“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.”
Berg Hill Greenleaf Ruscitti LLP
Later, BHGR partners Giovanni M. Ruscitti, Rudy Verner, Jack P. Storti and Larry Myers 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.