The MiamiCentral office towers are part of the six-block project that will feature 800-plus apartments, a retail center and Brightline's downtown Miami station.

The steel contractor on the Virgin MiamiCentral station and neighboring office tower won a $10.5 million settlement during trial on claims it didn't get paid for extra work caused by project mismanagement and incorrect designs.

ADF International Inc., part of publicly traded Quebec-based ADF Group Inc., was hired in 2016 by station general contractor Suffolk Construction Co. Inc. to work on the terminal and 10-story 2 MiamiCentral office tower. The terminal contract was for $28.7 million, and the office contract was worth $7.9 million.

In 2017, ADF International sued Suffolk Construction, project architect Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, and train parent All Aboard Florida, which was rebranded to Brightline and then Virgin Trains USA.

The train company, which in May sold the station's two office towers but kept the terminal, at first won its motion to be dismissed, arguing ADF knowingly breached the proper chain of command by naming All Aboard as a defendant even though ADF's boss was Suffolk. Virgin Trains was looped back in when Suffolk Construction and Skidmore Owings filed third-party complaints against it. Virgin Trains responded with counterclaims.

ADF, which amended its complaint twice, argued it received project plans that were missing information, had mistakes and sometimes were conflicting. Also, the construction site was mismanaged as tower cranes weren't provided and service on the nearby Metrorail and Metromover wasn't coordinated with the steel installation work.

ADF said it told Suffolk about the issues, but Suffolk either never replied or responded without thoroughly addressing problems, and told ADF to keep working. The complaint said ADF followed up by sending change items with added changes and extra costs, but the change notices were often rejected or ignored.

Miami-Dade Circuit Judge William Thomas presided over the trial from Sept. 16 to 27. ADF International and Suffolk had rested their cases. Skidmore was about to call its witnesses when the emphasis shifted to settlement talks.

ADF originally estimated it was owed $25.8 million but reduced its demand to $24.2 million in its second amended complaint and asked for $19 million at trial.

Suffolk paid some of ADF's costs during the litigation, and other amounts were recalculated, said ADF attorney Stuart Sobel, a shareholder at Siegfried, Rivera, Hyman, Lerner, De La Torre, Mars & Sobel in Coral Gables. He worked on the trial with shareholder Jason Trauth.

"We think that the $10.5 is that horrible thing called a fair settlement," he said flippantly. "We think it's fair. It may have been half of the liquidated amount we sued for, but it's a whole hell of a lot more than those guys wanted to pay."

Suffolk, Virgin Trains and Skidmore Owings will pay part of the settlement, but how they'll divvy it up wasn't disclosed because Skidmore pushed for confidentiality, Sobel said.

Suffolk's attorney, Bustamante & Goldstein partner Jordana Goldstein in Fort Lauderdale, declined to comment.

Skidmore's attorneys, Wright, Fulford, Moorhead & Brown attorneys Curtis Brown and Jeremy Sharon in Altamonte Springs, didn't respond to a request for comment by deadline.

The train company's attorney, Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson shareholder Eugene Stearns, also didn't reply to a request for comment by deadline.

Suffolk's court filings denied ADF's claims and argued in a motion to dismiss that under its contract ADF wasn't entitled to damages if the project was delayed, regardless of what caused the delay. Suffolk also filed a counterclaim against ADF, saying it didn't do the work on time or fully, did defective and noncompliant work and left the job. Suffolk claimed it was left on the hook for expenses to fix and finish the job.

Skidmore's motion to dismiss argued legal precedent did not allow negligence claims by a subcontractor against a project architect. The architect denied the claims and argued it wasn't at fault for the allegedly faulty plans.

Suffolk and Skidmore also filed third-party complaints against the train company. Suffolk claimed Virgin Trains didn't pay in full and Virgin Trains should repay Suffolk for any damages it might be ordered to pay ADF.

Skidmore in its suit against the train company claimed some of the faulty design allegations by ADF were based on errors by Virgin Trains' consultants, leaving Skidmore entitled to contractual indemnification.

Virgin Trains turned around to countersue Skidmore and Suffolk. In a Sept. 18 finding of fact and proposed final judgment filing, Virgin Trains argued Skidmore and Suffolk tried to deflect blame for their own failings by suing Virgin Trains.

In fact, Virgin Trains maintained Suffolk and Skidmore were liable for negligence and breach of contract. Virgin Trains argued Skidmore admitted it was understaffed and couldn't get along internally with Suffolk. The two companies "treated each other as 'enemies' instead of partners, much to the detriment of the projects," according to the proposed final judgment.

Skidmore, Suffolk and ADF kept the train company "in the dark" about the problems and passed along the issues as ordinary costs, Virgin Trains maintained. Suffolk didn't properly notify Virgin Trains about the extensions ADF sought and mismanaged the project by not addressing ADF's submittals of design errors.

The train company said it ended up paying tens of millions of dollars more for the project as a result.

All parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice Monday to dismiss all pending claims.

Related stories: 

MiamiCentral Steel Contractor Sues All Aboard Florida, Station Architect Amid Service Delays

3 MiamiCentral Contractor Claims $4.4 Million in Unpaid Work on Downtown Office Tower

Virgin Trains, Tri-Rail Roll Toward Real Estate Boom Linked to New Stations