Whether the Maryland court violated the Commerce Clause and Equal Protection Clause in its interpretation of the AIA construction contract

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In 2018, the Petitioner and Respondent entered into an AIA (American Institute of Architects) contract, a widely utilized construction industry standardized contract, for construction services. The plain language of the agreement would have barred damages where no remedial costs had actually been incurred by Respondent. Instead, the Maryland courts discarded the unambiguous plain language of the contract and allowed “any other rights or remedies” to support a judgment against Petitioner, in Respondent’s favor. In doing so, did the Maryland court: 1. Violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution in its interpretation of the AIA contract, which serves to establish a common framework for construction project participants, using consistent terminology and legal principles, by directly contradicting interpretation of the same AIA contract by other states and federal courts? 2. Violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution in its interpretation of the AIA contract, which serves to “level the playing field,” by disproportionately impacting disadvantaged small businesses with limited access and opportunity to discern the universe of available rights and remedies outside the standard contract language? u THE