Scott D. Cessar

Scott Cessar’s practice at Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC covers a broad range of civil litigation with a primary focus on construction law. He has extensive trial and alternative dispute resolution experience representing clients before state and federal courts, arbitration panels and mediators across the country. Scott’s construction law practice encompasses both public and private projects (commercial, heavy/highway, industrial, institutional and residential). Projects include hydroelectric plants, steel mills, bridges and highways, hospitals, office buildings, schools, laboratories, greenhouses, dams, pipelines, gas transmission facilities, water plants, sewer plants, mines, airports, glass furnaces, stadiums, hotels, pipelines, factories and process facilities and environmental remediation sites. Scott has handled all types of construction claims including delay, impact, loss of productivity, differing site condition, defective work, extra cost, architectural and engineering errors and omissions and overcharges, and bid and procurement protests; representing private owners, developers, public agencies, prime contractors, subcontractors, design professionals, equipment manufacturers and suppliers and sureties. Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC is a national law firm with over 375 attorneys located in offices throughout the eastern United States. The firm's clients represent nearly every facet of the economy, including multinational corporations, small businesses, nonprofit institutions, municipalities, government agencies and individuals. Scott D. Cessar can be reached at scessar@eckertseamans.com; 412.566.2581.

Contact:


Claims ManagementMore Like This

In United States v. Metcalf, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to review a decision of the lower court. If upheld, it would make contractor claims against the government for the breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing very difficult by requiring the contractor to show intentional bad faith by the government, as opposed to prior precedent that the contractor need only prove that the government objectively acted unreasonably. Continue »