Loading
Energy
10 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Renewable Energy, Marine Engineering, Project Management, Breach Of Contract, Damages
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
Federal. Fourth Circuit
US Wind Inc. v. InterMoor, Inc. is a renewable energy construction dispute involving a failed offshore infrastructure installation near Ocean City, Maryland. US Wind, the developer of a proposed offshore wind project in the Maryland Wind Energy Area, worked with InterMoor, Inc. after EPIC Applied Technologies, the original offshore installation contractor, entered bankruptcy. The project involved transporting and installing a meteorological mast, often called a “Met Mast,” to collect wind, site, and operating data before future turbine construction. The dispute arose after the Met Mast was not installed. US Wind claimed InterMoor failed to properly assess whether the lift boat selected for the job, the Great White, was suitable for offshore Maryland conditions and the narrowing seasonal weather window. InterMoor denied liability and sought payment for work it said it had performed. The case proceeded in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, where US Wind pursued claims including breach of contract, breach of warranty, rescission, unjust enrichment, and tortious interference with prospective economic relationships. Before trial, the court granted summary judgment to InterMoor on the rescission and unjust enrichment claims. After trial and post-trial motions, the court sustained US Wind’s breach-of-contract recovery, entered judgment for InterMoor on the tortious interference claim, and upheld InterMoor’s quantum meruit award for partial services.
This case centered on pre-construction infrastructure, contractor scope, vessel planning, and competing damages after an abandoned offshore installation. For attorneys, the matter is useful because it shows how technical marine-planning evidence can affect contract, warranty, tortious interference, and quantum meruit theories in the same renewable energy dispute.
In 2014, federal offshore wind lease activity supported US Wind’s development rights in the Maryland Wind Energy Area, located offshore from Ocean City, Maryland. Those lease rights supported a proposed offshore wind energy project, but the project still required site investigation, environmental review, engineering, and pre-construction planning before turbines could be installed.
As part of that development work, US Wind needed a meteorological mast to collect wind and environmental data from the offshore project area. The later dispute grew out of the failed installation of that structure, making the Met Mast a central issue in the contractor-performance case.
US Wind first hired EPIC Applied Technologies to transport and install the Met Mast, which had been built in Louisiana. The plan required the structure to be moved up the East Coast and installed offshore using a lift boat. When EPIC entered bankruptcy, US Wind had to continue the project without its original installation contractor while the schedule was already under pressure.
That change created a new contracting posture and raised questions about responsibility for project planning, vessel review, installation readiness, and delay. It also placed greater focus on whether InterMoor understood the offshore Maryland work site, the chosen lift boat, and the seasonal limits affecting the installation.
US Wind and InterMoor entered into a Master Services Agreement after EPIC’s bankruptcy disrupted the original installation plan. InterMoor’s work involved support for transporting and installing the Met Mast, including coordination with vessels and subcontractors.
The later breach-of-contract dispute focused in part on what InterMoor agreed to do under that agreement. The parties disagreed over whether InterMoor was responsible for reviewing the Great White’s suitability, understanding the offshore Maryland operating environment, and accounting for weather risks tied to the project schedule.
As the project moved forward, the timing shifted deeper into the late-summer and early-fall offshore weather period. Trial evidence addressed whether InterMoor properly reviewed expected site conditions, the Great White’s operating limits, and the marine operations planning needed for installation in the North Atlantic environment.
The court later noted that the jury heard evidence that weather off the Atlantic coast generally deteriorates in September. That timing became part of the causation dispute because the parties disagreed over whether delay affected the ability to complete the installation.
The Met Mast was not installed at the offshore project site. US Wind argued that InterMoor’s planning failures and lack of proper vessel-suitability review contributed to the failed installation and resulting damages.
InterMoor disputed causation and maintained that it had provided compensable services, including work connected to vessel chartering and transportation. The failed installation became the factual basis for competing claims over contract performance, project delay, and payment for partial work.
US Wind filed suit against InterMoor in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on October 11, 2019. The original lawsuit centered on alleged breach of the parties’ Master Services Agreement. US Wind later amended its pleadings to include additional claims, including tortious interference with prospective economic relationships.
InterMoor denied liability and pursued counterclaims seeking payment for services it said it provided. The civil proceedings placed the failed offshore installation, lift-boat suitability, contractor scope of work, and claimed delay damages before the federal court.
Before trial, the court ruled on motions that affected both legal claims and technical testimony. The court granted summary judgment to InterMoor on US Wind’s rescission and unjust enrichment claims. Other issues, including US Wind’s breach-of-contract theory and InterMoor’s payment-related counterclaims, continued toward trial.
The court also addressed expert testimony. InterMoor moved to exclude testimony from Michael Frampton, US Wind’s named expert witness, whose opinions addressed offshore installation planning, marine operations, and vessel-suitability issues. US Wind moved to exclude opinions from Scott C. McClure, InterMoor’s named expert witness, concerning offshore wind industry issues and InterMoor’s scope of work. The court denied both expert-exclusion motions, allowing the jury to hear testimony relevant to contractor performance, vessel suitability, and project delay.
After trial, the court reviewed post-trial motions and found sufficient evidence to sustain US Wind’s breach-of-contract verdict. The jury initially awarded US Wind $4,060,811.09 on the contract claim before the court applied a $400,000 offset. The court entered judgment for US Wind on its breach-of-contract claim in the amount of $3,660,811.09.
The court also entered judgment for InterMoor on US Wind’s tortious interference claim. Although the jury had initially found for US Wind on that claim, the court concluded that US Wind had not proven the required causation and non-speculative damages. In addition, the court recognized that InterMoor had provided some services, including vessel chartering and transportation-related work, and upheld InterMoor’s quantum meruit award of $859,224.99. The final judgment reflected a mixed result, with US Wind recovering on breach of contract and InterMoor receiving payment for partial services.
Court:
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
Case Name:
US Wind Inc. v. InterMoor, Inc.
Offshore Engineering
Wind energy and natural resources
Vessel Operations
Marine Transportation
Marine Survey
Construction Contracts
Contract Disputes
Delays
US Wind Inc. v. InterMoor, Inc. is a renewable energy construction dispute involving a failed offshore infrastructure installation near Ocean City, Maryland. US Wind, the developer of a proposed offshore wind project in the Maryland Wind Energy Area, worked with InterMoor, Inc. after EPIC Applied Technologies, the original offshore installation contractor, entered bankruptcy. The project involved transporting and installing a meteorological mast, often called a “Met Mast,” to collect wind, site, and operating data before future turbine construction. The dispute arose after the Met Mast was not installed. US Wind claimed InterMoor failed to properly assess whether the lift boat selected for the job, the Great White, was suitable for offshore Maryland conditions and the narrowing seasonal weather window. InterMoor denied liability and sought payment for work it said it had performed. The case proceeded in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, where US Wind pursued claims including breach of contract, breach of warranty, rescission, unjust enrichment, and tortious interference with prospective economic relationships. Before trial, the court granted summary judgment to InterMoor on the rescission and unjust enrichment claims. After trial and post-trial motions, the court sustained US Wind’s breach-of-contract recovery, entered judgment for InterMoor on the tortious interference claim, and upheld InterMoor’s quantum meruit award for partial services.
This case centered on pre-construction infrastructure, contractor scope, vessel planning, and competing damages after an abandoned offshore installation. For attorneys, the matter is useful because it shows how technical marine-planning evidence can affect contract, warranty, tortious interference, and quantum meruit theories in the same renewable energy dispute.
In 2014, federal offshore wind lease activity supported US Wind’s development rights in the Maryland Wind Energy Area, located offshore from Ocean City, Maryland. Those lease rights supported a proposed offshore wind energy project, but the project still required site investigation, environmental review, engineering, and pre-construction planning before turbines could be installed.
As part of that development work, US Wind needed a meteorological mast to collect wind and environmental data from the offshore project area. The later dispute grew out of the failed installation of that structure, making the Met Mast a central issue in the contractor-performance case.
US Wind first hired EPIC Applied Technologies to transport and install the Met Mast, which had been built in Louisiana. The plan required the structure to be moved up the East Coast and installed offshore using a lift boat. When EPIC entered bankruptcy, US Wind had to continue the project without its original installation contractor while the schedule was already under pressure.
That change created a new contracting posture and raised questions about responsibility for project planning, vessel review, installation readiness, and delay. It also placed greater focus on whether InterMoor understood the offshore Maryland work site, the chosen lift boat, and the seasonal limits affecting the installation.
US Wind and InterMoor entered into a Master Services Agreement after EPIC’s bankruptcy disrupted the original installation plan. InterMoor’s work involved support for transporting and installing the Met Mast, including coordination with vessels and subcontractors.
The later breach-of-contract dispute focused in part on what InterMoor agreed to do under that agreement. The parties disagreed over whether InterMoor was responsible for reviewing the Great White’s suitability, understanding the offshore Maryland operating environment, and accounting for weather risks tied to the project schedule.
As the project moved forward, the timing shifted deeper into the late-summer and early-fall offshore weather period. Trial evidence addressed whether InterMoor properly reviewed expected site conditions, the Great White’s operating limits, and the marine operations planning needed for installation in the North Atlantic environment.
The court later noted that the jury heard evidence that weather off the Atlantic coast generally deteriorates in September. That timing became part of the causation dispute because the parties disagreed over whether delay affected the ability to complete the installation.
The Met Mast was not installed at the offshore project site. US Wind argued that InterMoor’s planning failures and lack of proper vessel-suitability review contributed to the failed installation and resulting damages.
InterMoor disputed causation and maintained that it had provided compensable services, including work connected to vessel chartering and transportation. The failed installation became the factual basis for competing claims over contract performance, project delay, and payment for partial work.
US Wind filed suit against InterMoor in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on October 11, 2019. The original lawsuit centered on alleged breach of the parties’ Master Services Agreement. US Wind later amended its pleadings to include additional claims, including tortious interference with prospective economic relationships.
InterMoor denied liability and pursued counterclaims seeking payment for services it said it provided. The civil proceedings placed the failed offshore installation, lift-boat suitability, contractor scope of work, and claimed delay damages before the federal court.
Before trial, the court ruled on motions that affected both legal claims and technical testimony. The court granted summary judgment to InterMoor on US Wind’s rescission and unjust enrichment claims. Other issues, including US Wind’s breach-of-contract theory and InterMoor’s payment-related counterclaims, continued toward trial.
The court also addressed expert testimony. InterMoor moved to exclude testimony from Michael Frampton, US Wind’s named expert witness, whose opinions addressed offshore installation planning, marine operations, and vessel-suitability issues. US Wind moved to exclude opinions from Scott C. McClure, InterMoor’s named expert witness, concerning offshore wind industry issues and InterMoor’s scope of work. The court denied both expert-exclusion motions, allowing the jury to hear testimony relevant to contractor performance, vessel suitability, and project delay.
After trial, the court reviewed post-trial motions and found sufficient evidence to sustain US Wind’s breach-of-contract verdict. The jury initially awarded US Wind $4,060,811.09 on the contract claim before the court applied a $400,000 offset. The court entered judgment for US Wind on its breach-of-contract claim in the amount of $3,660,811.09.
The court also entered judgment for InterMoor on US Wind’s tortious interference claim. Although the jury had initially found for US Wind on that claim, the court concluded that US Wind had not proven the required causation and non-speculative damages. In addition, the court recognized that InterMoor had provided some services, including vessel chartering and transportation-related work, and upheld InterMoor’s quantum meruit award of $859,224.99. The final judgment reflected a mixed result, with US Wind recovering on breach of contract and InterMoor receiving payment for partial services.
Michael Frampton – Offshore Installation and Marine Operations Expert Witness – Plaintiff
Michael Frampton is publicly identified in the court record as US Wind’s expert witness. The record supports describing him as an expert involved in offshore installation planning and marine operations issues, including vessel suitability review, suitability surveys, marine operations manual review, and the expected responsibilities of an offshore installation contractor.
His testimony supported US Wind’s position that reviewing the suitability of the Great White was an expected part of InterMoor’s role in the failed Met Mast installation. His opinions were relevant because the case turned in part on whether InterMoor reasonably evaluated vessel limits, offshore conditions, and installation planning requirements.
Scott C. McClure – Offshore Wind Industry and Contractor Scope Expert Witness – Defense
Scott C. McClure is publicly identified in the court record as InterMoor’s expert witness. His exact technical discipline should be described with care, but the record supports a general description of his testimony as involving offshore wind industry issues and InterMoor’s contractor scope of work.
US Wind challenged his offshore wind industry opinions before trial, but the court denied the motion, allowing his testimony to be considered. His testimony was relevant to InterMoor’s position that its role, obligations, and performance should be evaluated within the scope of the work it agreed to perform.
Vessel Operations Expert Witness
A vessel suitability or lift-boat operations expert could help evaluate whether the selected vessel was appropriate for the offshore work site, expected sea conditions, and planned installation method. This type of expert may also assess vessel operating limits, marine planning decisions, and whether the installation approach aligned with accepted offshore construction practices.
Construction Delays and Weather-Window Expert Witness
A construction scheduling or offshore weather-window expert may be useful in disputes involving marine construction delays, seasonal work limits, and project sequencing. In an offshore renewable energy matter, this type of expert can evaluate whether vessel timing, changing weather conditions, and late-season delays affected the practicality or safety of completing the planned installation.
Damages and Contract Expert Witness
A damages or contract expert may be used to evaluate claimed project losses, payment disputes, partial performance, offsets, and the value of work completed before an installation fails. In renewable energy construction disputes, this type of expert can help explain how competing claims for breach-of-contract damages and compensation for services may be calculated.
Early-stage offshore wind infrastructure was the focus, not turbine output.
The dispute focused on the failed installation of a meteorological mast needed for future offshore wind farm development. It should not be described as a dispute over power generation from an operating wind farm.
Offshore weather windows can affect renewable energy project liability.
Delays can become more serious when offshore renewable energy work depends on seasonal weather, vessel capability, and site-specific marine conditions. In this case, September offshore conditions became part of the dispute over causation and contractor performance.
Contractor scope can shape renewable energy construction contract disputes.
The parties disputed what InterMoor was required to do, including whether it had responsibility for reviewing vessel suitability, lift-boat operating limits, and offshore project conditions. The breach-of-contract claim turned in part on how the contractor’s role was defined and performed.
Partial performance can affect damages when an offshore installation fails.
Although the Met Mast was not installed, the court recognized evidence that InterMoor provided some services, including vessel chartering and transportation-related work. That partial performance supported InterMoor’s quantum meruit award, even though US Wind prevailed on its breach-of-contract claim.
Expert testimony can address technical offshore construction issues.
The court allowed expert testimony on offshore installation planning, vessel review, and industry-related issues. The testimony addressed technical questions beyond ordinary renewable energy contract interpretation, including whether the vessel and marine operations planning were suited to the project site.
US Wind Inc. v. InterMoor, Inc. shows how an offshore wind project can become a contract dispute when planning, timing, vessel readiness, and contractor duties are contested. The failed Met Mast installation became the center of a disagreement over who was responsible for assessing offshore construction risks and whether delay pushed the work into conditions that made installation harder to complete.
The case also shows that renewable energy projects can face legal conflict before turbines are built or energy is produced. At the early development stage, contracting, technical review, vessel planning, and realistic scheduling can affect whether offshore work proceeds as planned. The final outcome was mixed: US Wind prevailed on breach of contract, InterMoor prevailed on the tortious interference claim and received a quantum meruit award, and the judgment reflected competing findings about contractor performance and partial services.
What was the US Wind Inc. v. InterMoor, Inc. offshore wind dispute about?
The case involved a failed effort to transport and install a meteorological mast for US Wind’s planned offshore wind project near Ocean City, Maryland. US Wind claimed that InterMoor breached contractual duties related to offshore planning and installation support. InterMoor disputed liability and sought payment for services it provided.
What role did the meteorological mast play in the offshore wind project?
The meteorological mast was intended to collect wind, site, and environmental data for the planned offshore wind project. The structure was part of the development work preceding turbine construction.
What project-delay issues were disputed?
The parties disputed a failed offshore installation, late-season timing, narrowing weather windows, vessel suitability, and contractor performance. They disagreed over whether InterMoor’s planning and work caused the installation failure, project delay, and resulting damages.
What vessel-suitability issue did the Great White raise?
The Great White was the lift boat selected for the Met Mast installation. The dispute concerned whether it was suitable for the offshore Maryland location, expected weather, marine conditions, and operating limits. US Wind maintained that InterMoor failed to independently evaluate the vessel’s suitability before the installation attempt failed.
What was the result of US Wind Inc. v. InterMoor, Inc.?
After trial and post-trial motions, the court entered judgment for US Wind on its breach-of-contract claim for $3,660,811.09 after reducing the jury’s $4,060,811.09 award by a $400,000 settlement offset. The court entered judgment for InterMoor on US Wind’s tortious interference claim and upheld InterMoor’s $859,224.99 quantum meruit award for services it provided.
Michael Frampton – Offshore Installation and Marine Operations Expert Witness – Plaintiff
Michael Frampton is publicly identified in the court record as US Wind’s expert witness. The record supports describing him as an expert involved in offshore installation planning and marine operations issues, including vessel suitability review, suitability surveys, marine operations manual review, and the expected responsibilities of an offshore installation contractor.
His testimony supported US Wind’s position that reviewing the suitability of the Great White was an expected part of InterMoor’s role in the failed Met Mast installation. His opinions were relevant because the case turned in part on whether InterMoor reasonably evaluated vessel limits, offshore conditions, and installation planning requirements.
Scott C. McClure – Offshore Wind Industry and Contractor Scope Expert Witness – Defense
Scott C. McClure is publicly identified in the court record as InterMoor’s expert witness. His exact technical discipline should be described with care, but the record supports a general description of his testimony as involving offshore wind industry issues and InterMoor’s contractor scope of work.
US Wind challenged his offshore wind industry opinions before trial, but the court denied the motion, allowing his testimony to be considered. His testimony was relevant to InterMoor’s position that its role, obligations, and performance should be evaluated within the scope of the work it agreed to perform.
Vessel Operations Expert Witness
A vessel suitability or lift-boat operations expert could help evaluate whether the selected vessel was appropriate for the offshore work site, expected sea conditions, and planned installation method. This type of expert may also assess vessel operating limits, marine planning decisions, and whether the installation approach aligned with accepted offshore construction practices.
Construction Delays and Weather-Window Expert Witness
A construction scheduling or offshore weather-window expert may be useful in disputes involving marine construction delays, seasonal work limits, and project sequencing. In an offshore renewable energy matter, this type of expert can evaluate whether vessel timing, changing weather conditions, and late-season delays affected the practicality or safety of completing the planned installation.
Damages and Contract Expert Witness
A damages or contract expert may be used to evaluate claimed project losses, payment disputes, partial performance, offsets, and the value of work completed before an installation fails. In renewable energy construction disputes, this type of expert can help explain how competing claims for breach-of-contract damages and compensation for services may be calculated.
Early-stage offshore wind infrastructure was the focus, not turbine output.
The dispute focused on the failed installation of a meteorological mast needed for future offshore wind farm development. It should not be described as a dispute over power generation from an operating wind farm.
Offshore weather windows can affect renewable energy project liability.
Delays can become more serious when offshore renewable energy work depends on seasonal weather, vessel capability, and site-specific marine conditions. In this case, September offshore conditions became part of the dispute over causation and contractor performance.
Contractor scope can shape renewable energy construction contract disputes.
The parties disputed what InterMoor was required to do, including whether it had responsibility for reviewing vessel suitability, lift-boat operating limits, and offshore project conditions. The breach-of-contract claim turned in part on how the contractor’s role was defined and performed.
Partial performance can affect damages when an offshore installation fails.
Although the Met Mast was not installed, the court recognized evidence that InterMoor provided some services, including vessel chartering and transportation-related work. That partial performance supported InterMoor’s quantum meruit award, even though US Wind prevailed on its breach-of-contract claim.
Expert testimony can address technical offshore construction issues.
The court allowed expert testimony on offshore installation planning, vessel review, and industry-related issues. The testimony addressed technical questions beyond ordinary renewable energy contract interpretation, including whether the vessel and marine operations planning were suited to the project site.
US Wind Inc. v. InterMoor, Inc. shows how an offshore wind project can become a contract dispute when planning, timing, vessel readiness, and contractor duties are contested. The failed Met Mast installation became the center of a disagreement over who was responsible for assessing offshore construction risks and whether delay pushed the work into conditions that made installation harder to complete.
The case also shows that renewable energy projects can face legal conflict before turbines are built or energy is produced. At the early development stage, contracting, technical review, vessel planning, and realistic scheduling can affect whether offshore work proceeds as planned. The final outcome was mixed: US Wind prevailed on breach of contract, InterMoor prevailed on the tortious interference claim and received a quantum meruit award, and the judgment reflected competing findings about contractor performance and partial services.
What was the US Wind Inc. v. InterMoor, Inc. offshore wind dispute about?
The case involved a failed effort to transport and install a meteorological mast for US Wind’s planned offshore wind project near Ocean City, Maryland. US Wind claimed that InterMoor breached contractual duties related to offshore planning and installation support. InterMoor disputed liability and sought payment for services it provided.
What role did the meteorological mast play in the offshore wind project?
The meteorological mast was intended to collect wind, site, and environmental data for the planned offshore wind project. The structure was part of the development work preceding turbine construction.
What project-delay issues were disputed?
The parties disputed a failed offshore installation, late-season timing, narrowing weather windows, vessel suitability, and contractor performance. They disagreed over whether InterMoor’s planning and work caused the installation failure, project delay, and resulting damages.
What vessel-suitability issue did the Great White raise?
The Great White was the lift boat selected for the Met Mast installation. The dispute concerned whether it was suitable for the offshore Maryland location, expected weather, marine conditions, and operating limits. US Wind maintained that InterMoor failed to independently evaluate the vessel’s suitability before the installation attempt failed.
What was the result of US Wind Inc. v. InterMoor, Inc.?
After trial and post-trial motions, the court entered judgment for US Wind on its breach-of-contract claim for $3,660,811.09 after reducing the jury’s $4,060,811.09 award by a $400,000 settlement offset. The court entered judgment for InterMoor on US Wind’s tortious interference claim and upheld InterMoor’s $859,224.99 quantum meruit award for services it provided.
Offshore Engineering
Wind energy and natural resources
Vessel Operations
Marine Transportation
Marine Survey
Construction Contracts
Contract Disputes
Delays
Climate Change, +4
Energy
Energy, +4
Energy
Energy, +4
Energy