I’ve seen this pattern far too many times.
An owner pushes hard on schedule, accelerates design, and assumes the team will “figure it out in the field.”
Then the project hits a wall of changes, delays, and finger-pointing.  All of this could have been prevented with a more disciplined design phase.

A recent New York Appellate Division ruling shows just how costly this behavior can be for owners. In Henick-Lane, LLC v. Soho AOA Owner LLC (2025), the court enforced a no-damages-for-delay clause against a subcontractor whose extra-work claims were all tied to owner-caused delays, scope changes, and missing prerequisites. The court held that under the contract, the subcontractor’s sole remedy was additional time — not compensation — even though the delays stemmed from the owner’s actions and design changes.

According to the Lexology summary, the decision reinforces the strength of no-damages-for-delay provisions and clarifies that owners who cause delay through design issues or late decisions may still be shielded by these clauses — unless their conduct crosses into bad faith, gross negligence, or the limited exceptions recognized under New York law.
Source: Lexology — “Appellate Court Reinforces Delay Clause in Construction Subcontract.”

For owners, the lesson is not about contractual advantage — it’s about risk discipline. Because rushing design can leave you with the worst of both worlds: increased construction cost and lost leverage over schedule impacts.

---

Problem & Context: The Hidden Risk Owners Create for Themselves

In today’s market, many owners prioritize speed above all else.
They want shovels in the ground before design stabilizes.
They issue partial drawings (or press so hard on schedule during design that they release imperfect drawings) and assume the rest will resolve later.

But here’s the operational truth:
Every late decision becomes a change.
Every change becomes a disruption.
And disruptions become delays — the very delays owners later try to avoid.

In the Henick-Lane ruling, the subcontractor argued that certain extra-work costs stemmed from obstructions, late availability of equipment, and changes during construction.
The court disagreed. These weren’t “extra work” — they were delay impacts, expressly covered by the subcontract’s no-damages-for-delay language.

Worse for the subcontractor, the court found the owner’s actions were not malicious or in bad faith — just “inept administration or poor planning.” That distinction mattered: poor planning does not invalidate the no-damages-for-delay clause.

Owners should pay close attention to that phrase.

Because rushing design is, in fact, poor planning.

---

Insight & Lesson: Why Rushed Design Is the Root Cause of Unrecoverable Delay

Owners often misunderstand how delay exposure arises. The danger isn’t just the clause — it’s the sequence:

1. Accelerated design creates incomplete scope

When owners rush design milestones, they unintentionally insert uncertainty into the project.
Incomplete drawings produce assumptions, and assumptions produce claims.

2. Incomplete scope becomes change orders

What looked like a small decision deferred becomes a significant change introduced during construction.
Changes cause resequencing, re-mobilization, and idle time.

3. Delays created by changes fall squarely inside the clause

In the Henick-Lane case, the contract explicitly stated that delays “by changes in the Work” were subject to the no-damages-for-delay clause.
The court enforced it as written.

4. Delay claims transform into time-only relief

Which means:

• No compensation for inefficiencies

• No recovery for extended labor or supervision

• No additional cost for idle time

• No reimbursement for stacked trades, site conflicts, or cascading impacts

5. Owners lose their leverage

They cannot demand schedule recovery with any credibility — because their own decisions created the delay.

This is the paradox owners must understand:

When you rush design to “protect schedule,” you lose both cost control and schedule protection.

---

Best Practices for Owners (to Protect Themselves From Themselves)

Clarify Early

Slow down at the beginning to go faster later.
A thorough programming and schematic design phase eliminates most downstream changes.

Freeze Scope Before Procurement

No-damages-for-delay clauses give owners broad protection — but they do not prevent the operational consequences of chaos.
Establish a formal “design freeze” and treat it seriously.

Align Procurement and Design Maturity

Do not procure contractors against a moving target.
Misaligned timing is often the root cause of later disputes.

Recognize When Change Truly Means Delay

If a design change alters sequence, access, or prerequisite work, assume it carries delay risk — even if the contractor hasn’t said it yet.

Treat Design as the Owner’s Primary Risk Lever

Strong design discipline is the single most cost-effective form of owner risk management in construction.

---

GOA Perspective

At GOA, we’ve seen owners regain 10–15% schedule efficiency simply by slowing down early design and structuring procurement around stable scope.
No contract clause — however favorable — can overcome poor planning.

Our philosophy is simple:

Owners shouldn’t rely on exculpatory clauses to protect them from delays.
They should prevent the conditions that cause delay in the first place.

The Henick-Lane ruling is a reminder that the legal system will enforce what you sign.
But GOA’s work is about protecting owners before they ever need a court to interpret their contracts.

---

Close & Engagement

How do you manage scope discipline on your projects?
Where have early design decisions (or indecision) created unexpected schedule impacts?
Have no-damages-for-delay clauses ever helped or hurt you?