Contractor Claims Real Estate Company, MassDOT Owe Millions for Fenway Center Project in Lawsuit
Boston, MA – August 30, 2025, A major contractor involved in the ambitious Fenway Center project, a $600 million mixed-use development over the Massachusetts Turnpike in Boston’s Fenway neighborhood, has filed a lawsuit alleging that the real estate developer and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) have failed to fully pay for work completed. The lawsuit, filed in Massachusetts Superior Court, claims that the contractor is owed millions for its contributions to the largest air rights development in Boston since the 1980s.
The Fenway Center, developed by Meredith Management and IQHQ and designed by Gensler, features 313 residential units, a 22-story tower, and a 12-story office and lab space building. The project, which aims to connect two neighborhoods and bolster Boston’s life science market, was enabled by a $21 million, 99-year lease agreement with MassDOT in 2017. According to court filings, the contractor asserts that it fulfilled its contractual obligations, including construction work on the complex air rights infrastructure, but has not received full payment for services rendered, prompting allegations of breach of contract.
The contractor’s complaint names both the real estate development team and MassDOT, claiming that payments were withheld despite the completion of work according to the project’s specifications. Sources familiar with the case indicate that the contractor is seeking damages in excess of $10 million, citing unpaid invoices and additional costs incurred due to project delays and scope changes. The lawsuit further alleges that the defendants failed to adhere to Massachusetts’ Prompt Pay Act, which requires timely payment for construction work and imposes strict requirements for rejecting payment requests. A 2022 Massachusetts Appeals Court decision in Tocci Building Corp. v. IRIV Partners, LLC emphasized that non-compliance with the Act’s requirements can lead to summary judgment in favor of contractors, a precedent that may bolster the plaintiff’s case.
MassDOT and the developers have yet to issue a detailed response to the lawsuit, but a spokesperson for MassDOT stated that the agency is reviewing the claims and will address them through appropriate legal channels. The real estate consortium, in a preliminary statement, denied the allegations, asserting that all payments were made in accordance with the contract and that any disputes stem from incomplete or substandard work, which they claim delayed the project’s timeline. The defendants may also argue that they are entitled to raise counterclaims for breach of contract, as permitted under the Prompt Pay Act, to recoup payments if the work is proven deficient.
The Fenway Center project has been a focal point of Boston’s urban development, leveraging air rights to maximize land use in a city grappling with housing shortages and rising construction costs. The lawsuit highlights the complexities of large-scale infrastructure projects, particularly those involving public-private partnerships and air rights, which often face challenges related to financing, coordination, and compliance with strict regulatory frameworks.
Legal experts suggest that the case could hinge on the terms of the contract and the documentation provided by the contractor, such as invoices, timelines, and communications with the defendants. Massachusetts law allows contractors to file mechanic’s liens for unpaid work, though such liens cannot be applied to public property owned by the Commonwealth, meaning the contractor may pursue bond claims or direct contract enforcement against MassDOT. The state’s six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract claims, as outlined in LegalMatch, provides a window for the contractor to seek redress, provided the alleged non-payment occurred within this timeframe.
As the case progresses, it could have implications for future air rights projects and public-private collaborations in Massachusetts. The contractor is seeking not only the outstanding payments but also interest and legal fees, potentially escalating the financial stakes. A hearing is scheduled for next month, with both sides expected to present detailed evidence regarding the project’s financial and contractual disputes.
Sources: Propmodo, LegalMatch, Freeman Mathis & Gary, Mass.gov, Calabrese Law Associates