Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies The Company and certain of its subsidiaries are involved in litigation and other legal proceedings and forms of dispute resolution in the ordinary course of business, including but not limited to disputes over contract payment and/or performance-related issues (such as disagreements regarding delay or a change in the scope of work of a project and/or the price associated with that change) and other matters incidental to the Company’s business. In accordance with ASC 606, the Company makes assessments of these types of matters on a routine basis and, to the extent permitted by ASC 606, estimates and records recovery related to these matters as a form of variable consideration at the most likely amount the Company expects to receive, as discussed further in Note 4, Contract Assets and Liabilities. In addition, the Company is contingently liable for litigation, performance guarantees and other commitments arising in the ordinary course of business, which are accounted for in accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies. Management reviews these matters regularly and updates or revises its estimates as warranted by subsequent information and developments. These assessments require judgments concerning matters that are inherently uncertain, such as litigation developments and outcomes, the anticipated outcome of negotiations and the estimated cost of resolving disputes. Consequently, these assessments are estimates, and actual amounts may vary from such estimates. In addition, because such matters are typically resolved over long periods of time, the Company’s assets and liabilities may change over time should the circumstances dictate. The description of the legal proceedings listed below include management’s assessment of those proceedings. Management believes that, based on current information and discussions with the Company’s legal counsel, the ultimate resolution of other matters is not expected to have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. A description of the material pending legal proceedings, other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to the business, is as follows: Alaskan Way Viaduct Matter In January 2011, Seattle Tunnel Partners (“STP”), a joint venture between Dragados USA, Inc. and the Company, entered into a design-build contract with the Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) for the construction of a large-diameter bored tunnel in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct, also known as State Route 99. The Company has a 45% interest in STP. The construction of the large-diameter bored tunnel required the use of a tunnel boring machine (“TBM”). In December 2013, the TBM struck a steel pipe, installed by WSDOT as a well casing for an exploratory well. The TBM was significantly damaged and was required to be repaired. STP asserted that the steel pipe casing was a differing site condition that WSDOT failed to properly disclose. The Disputes Review Board mandated by the contract to hear disputes issued a decision finding the steel casing was a Type I (material) differing site condition. WSDOT did not accept that finding. Case Against WSDOT In March 2016, WSDOT filed a complaint against STP in Thurston County Superior Court alleging breach of contract, seeking $57.2 million in delay-related damages and seeking declaratory relief. STP subsequently filed a counterclaim against WSDOT seeking damages in excess of $640 million. The jury trial between STP and WSDOT commenced on October 7, 2019 and concluded on December 13, 2019, with a jury verdict in favor of WSDOT awarding them $57.2 million in damages. The Company recorded the impact of the jury verdict during the fourth quarter of 2019, resulting in a pre-tax charge of $166.8 million, which included $25.7 million for the Company’s 45% proportionate share of the $57.2 million in damages awarded by the jury to WSDOT. The charge was for non-cash write-downs primarily related to the costs and estimated earnings in excess of billings and receivables that the Company previously recorded to reflect its expected recovery in this case. STP’s petition for discretionary review by the Washington Supreme Court was denied on October 10, 2022. On October 18, 2022, STP paid the damages and associated interest from the judgment, which included the Company’s proportionate share of $34.6 million. As a result, the lawsuit between STP and WSDOT has concluded. Case Against Insurers The TBM was insured under a Builder’s Risk Insurance Policy (the “Policy”) with Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) PLC and a consortium of other insurers (the “Insurers”). STP submitted the claims to the Insurers and requested interim payments under the Policy. The Insurers refused to pay and denied coverage. In June 2015, STP filed a lawsuit in the King County Superior Court, State of Washington seeking declaratory relief, as well as damages as a result of the Insurers’ breach of their obligations under the terms of the Policy. On September 30, 2024, after several years of law and motion proceedings, a confidential settlement was reached resolving the case in full for a substantial sum. Payment was received in October 2024 and the case against the Insurers was dismissed. As a result of the settlement, STP resolved the claims of Hitachi Zosen (the manufacturer of the TBM) and the remaining subcontractor lawsuits pending on the project, including those with the Company’s subsidiaries. Case Against Designer On April 13, 2023, STP filed a case in the Washington Superior Court against HNTB Corporation (“HNTB”), STP’s design firm on the project, wherein STP alleges that HNTB is liable for providing design services that resulted in the TBM striking the steel pipe described above and for additional steel quantity costs associated with the project. Due to the resolution of the matter against the Insurers and WSDOT discussed above, STP’s claim against HNTB was revised and includes HNTB’s liability for providing design services, amounts paid by STP to WSDOT in liquidated damages and interest as well as certain subcontractor delay claims paid by STP to subcontractors in November 2024. On March 7, 2026, a confidential settlement was reached resolving the case in full for a substantial sum, which did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial statements. Payment was received in March and April 2026 and the case against HNTB is expected to be dismissed in the second quarter of 2026. As a result of the settlement, all matters related to the project have been resolved. W/Element Hotel Matter On March 15, 2015, Tutor Perini Building Corp. (“TPBC”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, acting as construction manager, entered into two contracts with Chestlen Development, L.P. (the “Developer”) for the construction of a dual-branded W/Element Hotel project in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The project consisted of a 295-room W Philadelphia hotel and a 460-room Element hotel within a single 51-story tower, together with a parking garage and public and retail spaces. The adjusted contract value was $256 million. Construction commenced in April 2015. The Developer received a certificate of occupancy from the City of Philadelphia in April 2021, and the hotel opened to the public in May 2021. Design Delays and COVID Impact During construction, the project experienced substantial delays and incurred additional costs. A principal area of dispute concerned the design of the building’s concrete floor system. The floor system was designed by professional designers retained directly by, and under contract solely with, the Developer. At the direction of the Developer, in an effort to reduce construction costs by decreasing the quantity of materials and labor required, the designers reduced the floor slab thickness to nine inches of combined concrete and rebar between building levels. This thinner floor design resulted in increased floor deflection, meaning greater bending or sagging of the floors under load. As a consequence of the excessive floor deflection, additional remedial work was required before installation of finish materials. In addition, the window system, which is anchored to the floor slabs, required further adjustments to accommodate conditions. These conditions caused additional project costs and contributed to further delays in completing the project. In addition, the project experienced significant delays and cost impacts arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, during which major construction activities were being performed. As a result of governmental restrictions and other practical realities associated with the pandemic, work hours were reduced, access to and use of equipment was limited, materials were disrupted, and other conditions adversely affected productivity and slowed project progress. Litigation Against Developer In 2020, litigation commenced in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas which ultimately resulted in a consolidated case of more than twenty parties, including the Developer, TPBC, trade subcontractors, designers, and others. The parties asserted claims for breach of contract and to enforce mechanics’ liens, including a mechanics’ lien filed by TPBC on behalf of itself and its trade subcontractors in the amount of approximately $119 million. Claims involving the designers were subsequently settled, with the settlement proceeds placed into escrow pending further determination regarding entitlement to those funds. The disputes among the remaining parties continued in litigation. On October 31, 2025, the court issued a ruling finding that the project’s principal defects relating to floor deflection and window installation were attributable to the contractors and not to the Developer. On February 27, 2026, the court granted the Developer’s motion to strike the mechanics’ lien filed by TPBC against the project, which TPBC is appealing. On April 10, 2026, the court issued its Findings as to Damages and Order in favor of the Developer, awarding approximately $175 million, including approximately $98 million in liquidated damages, of which approximately $60 million relates to periods extending beyond the date the hotel opened. The court also rejected the other delay-related defenses and claims asserted by TPBC. On April 23, 2026, TPBC filed a motion for reconsideration of both the liability determination and the damages award. If the matter is not resolved through reconsideration by the trial court, TPBC intends to appeal the decision. The anticipated grounds for appeal are expected to include challenges to: (i) the findings on the merits regarding the cause of the floor deflections; (ii) the legal standard applied in determining responsibility of the project designers retained by the Developer; (iii) the methodology used to calculate damages; (iv) the award of damages barred by the consequential damages waiver provisions of the contracts; (v) the award of liquidated damages for periods extending beyond the issuance of a certificate of occupancy; and (vi) the withholding of approximately $31 million in unpaid contract balances due to TPBC. Additionally, TPBC will appeal the trial court’s ruling as to whether the majority of the claims should have been covered under the builder’s risk insurance procured by the Developer, which provided coverage to the Developer, TPBC and its subcontractors. The Developer agreed to serve as “the sole and irrevocable agent” for submitting insurance claims. TPBC asserts that the Developer’s failure to submit timely claims to the insurance carrier constituted a material breach of its contractual obligations resulting in a waiver of otherwise insurable damages. Litigation Involving Subcontractors Between December 2025 and April 2026, TPBC settled with, or paid contract balances to, most of the subcontractors despite not yet collecting said contract balances from the Developer. Five subcontractors continue to assert unresolved claims, which remain subject to further settlement discussions or adjudication. The litigation remains pending before the trial court and is expected to proceed to the appellate courts following final disposition of the remaining matters. Payment of any potential damages will only be made if the adverse verdict is upheld on appeal. As of March 31, 2026, the Company has concluded that the potential for a material adverse financial impact due to the Developer’s and subcontractors’ legal actions is neither probable nor remote. With respect to TPBC’s claims against the Developer and certain subcontractors, as a result of the rulings, management recognized an immaterial charge to earnings during the period. Management has continued to include an estimate of the total anticipated recovery, concluded to be both probable and reliably estimable, in receivables or costs and estimated earnings in excess of billings. To the extent new facts become known or the final recoveries or payments vary from the estimate, the impact of the change will be reflected in the financial statements at that time.

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries are involved in litigation and other legal proceedings and forms of dispute resolution in the ordinary course of business, including but not limited to disputes over contract payment and/or performance-related issues (such as disagreements regarding delay or a change in the scope of work of a project and/or the price associated with that change) and other matters incidental to the Company’s business. In accordance with ASC 606, the Company makes assessments of these types of matters on a routine basis and, to the extent permitted by ASC 606, estimates and records recovery related to these matters as a form of variable consideration at the most likely amount the Company expects to receive, as discussed further in Note 4, Contract Assets and Liabilities. In addition, the Company is contingently liable for litigation, performance guarantees and other commitments arising in the ordinary course of business, which are accounted for in accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies. Management reviews these matters regularly and updates or revises its estimates as warranted by subsequent information and developments. These assessments require judgments concerning matters that are inherently uncertain, such as litigation developments and outcomes, the anticipated outcome of negotiations and the estimated

cost of resolving disputes. Consequently, these assessments are estimates, and actual amounts may vary from such estimates. In addition, because such matters are typically resolved over long periods of time, the Company’s assets and liabilities may change over time should the circumstances dictate. The description of the legal proceedings listed below include management’s assessment of those proceedings. Management believes that, based on current information and discussions with the Company’s legal counsel, the ultimate resolution of other matters is not expected to have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In January 2011, Seattle Tunnel Partners (“STP”), a joint venture between Dragados USA, Inc. and the Company, entered into a design-build contract with the Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) for the construction of a large-diameter bored tunnel in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct, also known as State Route 99. The Company has a 45% interest in STP. The construction of the large-diameter bored tunnel required the use of a tunnel boring machine (“TBM”). In December 2013, the TBM struck a steel pipe, installed by WSDOT as a well casing for an exploratory well. The TBM was significantly damaged and was required to be repaired. STP asserted that the steel pipe casing was a differing site condition that WSDOT failed to properly disclose. The Disputes Review Board mandated by the contract to hear disputes issued a decision finding the steel casing was a Type I (material) differing site condition. WSDOT did not accept that finding.

In March 2016, WSDOT filed a complaint against STP in Thurston County Superior Court alleging breach of contract, seeking $57.2 million in delay-related damages and seeking declaratory relief. STP subsequently filed a counterclaim against WSDOT seeking damages in excess of $640 million. The jury trial between STP and WSDOT commenced on October 7, 2019 and concluded on December 13, 2019, with a jury verdict in favor of WSDOT awarding them $57.2 million in damages. The Company recorded the impact of the jury verdict during the fourth quarter of 2019, resulting in a pre-tax charge of $166.8 million, which included $25.7 million for the Company’s 45% proportionate share of the $57.2 million in damages awarded by the jury to WSDOT. The charge was for non-cash write-downs primarily related to the costs and estimated earnings in excess of billings and receivables that the Company previously recorded to reflect its expected recovery in this case. STP’s petition for discretionary review by the Washington Supreme Court was denied on October 10, 2022. On October 18, 2022, STP paid the damages and associated interest from the judgment, which included the Company’s proportionate share of $34.6 million. As a result, the lawsuit between STP and WSDOT has concluded.

The TBM was insured under a Builder’s Risk Insurance Policy (the “Policy”) with Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) PLC and a consortium of other insurers (the “Insurers”). STP submitted the claims to the Insurers and requested interim payments under the Policy. The Insurers refused to pay and denied coverage. In June 2015, STP filed a lawsuit in the King County Superior Court, State of Washington seeking declaratory relief, as well as damages as a result of the Insurers’ breach of their obligations under the terms of the Policy. On September 30, 2024, after several years of law and motion proceedings, a confidential settlement was reached resolving the case in full for a substantial sum. Payment was received in October 2024 and the case against the Insurers was dismissed. As a result of the settlement, STP resolved the claims of Hitachi Zosen (the manufacturer of the TBM) and the remaining subcontractor lawsuits pending on the project, including those with the Company’s subsidiaries.

On April 13, 2023, STP filed a case in the Washington Superior Court against HNTB Corporation (“HNTB”), STP’s design firm on the project, wherein STP alleges that HNTB is liable for providing design services that resulted in the TBM striking the steel pipe described above and for additional steel quantity costs associated with the project. Due to the resolution of the matter against the Insurers and WSDOT discussed above, STP’s claim against HNTB was revised and includes HNTB’s liability for providing design services, amounts paid by STP to WSDOT in liquidated damages and interest as well as certain subcontractor delay claims paid by STP to subcontractors in November 2024. On March 7, 2026, a confidential settlement was reached resolving the case in full for a substantial sum, which did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial statements.

On March 15, 2015, Tutor Perini Building Corp. (“TPBC”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, acting as construction manager, entered into two contracts with Chestlen Development, L.P. (the “Developer”) for the construction of a dual-branded W/Element Hotel project in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The project consisted of a 295-room W Philadelphia hotel and a 460-room Element hotel within a single 51-story tower, together with a parking garage and public and retail spaces. The adjusted contract value was $256 million. Construction commenced in April 2015. The Developer received a certificate of occupancy from the City of Philadelphia in April 2021, and the hotel opened to the public in May 2021.

During construction, the project experienced substantial delays and incurred additional costs. A principal area of dispute concerned the design of the building’s concrete floor system. The floor system was designed by professional designers retained directly by, and under contract solely with, the Developer. At the direction of the Developer, in an effort to reduce construction costs by decreasing the quantity of materials and labor required, the designers reduced the floor slab thickness to nine inches of combined concrete and rebar between building levels. This thinner floor design resulted in increased floor deflection, meaning greater bending or sagging of the floors under load. As a consequence of the excessive floor deflection, additional remedial work was required before installation of finish materials. In addition, the window system, which is anchored to the floor slabs, required further adjustments to accommodate conditions. These conditions caused additional project costs and contributed to further delays in completing the project.

In addition, the project experienced significant delays and cost impacts arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, during which major construction activities were being performed. As a result of governmental restrictions and other practical realities associated with the pandemic, work hours were reduced, access to and use of equipment was limited, materials were disrupted, and other conditions adversely affected productivity and slowed project progress.

In 2020, litigation commenced in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas which ultimately resulted in a consolidated case of more than twenty parties, including the Developer, TPBC, trade subcontractors, designers, and others. The parties asserted claims for breach of contract and to enforce mechanics’ liens, including a mechanics’ lien filed by TPBC on behalf of itself and its trade subcontractors in the amount of approximately $119 million. Claims involving the designers were subsequently settled, with the settlement proceeds placed into escrow pending further determination regarding entitlement to those funds. The disputes among the remaining parties continued in litigation. On October 31, 2025, the court issued a ruling finding that the project’s principal defects relating to floor deflection and window installation were attributable to the contractors and not to the Developer. On February 27, 2026, the court granted the Developer’s motion to strike the mechanics’ lien filed by TPBC against the project, which TPBC is appealing. On April 10, 2026, the court issued its Findings as to Damages and Order in favor of the Developer, awarding approximately $175 million, including approximately $98 million in liquidated damages, of which approximately $60 million relates to periods extending beyond the date the hotel opened. The court also rejected the other delay-related defenses and claims asserted by TPBC. On April 23, 2026, TPBC filed a motion for reconsideration of both the liability determination and the damages award.

If the matter is not resolved through reconsideration by the trial court, TPBC intends to appeal the decision. The anticipated grounds for appeal are expected to include challenges to: (i) the findings on the merits regarding the cause of the floor deflections; (ii) the legal standard applied in determining responsibility of the project designers retained by the Developer; (iii) the methodology used to calculate damages; (iv) the award of damages barred by the consequential damages waiver provisions of the contracts; (v) the award of liquidated damages for periods extending beyond the issuance of a certificate of occupancy; and (vi) the withholding of approximately $31 million in unpaid contract balances due to TPBC. Additionally, TPBC will appeal the trial court’s ruling as to whether the majority of the claims should have been covered under the builder’s risk insurance procured by the Developer, which provided coverage to the Developer, TPBC and its subcontractors. The Developer agreed to serve as “the sole and irrevocable agent” for submitting insurance claims. TPBC asserts that the Developer’s failure to submit timely claims to the insurance carrier constituted a material breach of its contractual obligations resulting in a waiver of otherwise insurable damages.

Between December 2025 and April 2026, TPBC settled with, or paid contract balances to, most of the subcontractors despite not yet collecting said contract balances from the Developer. Five subcontractors continue to assert unresolved claims, which remain subject to further settlement discussions or adjudication.

As of March 31, 2026, the Company has concluded that the potential for a material adverse financial impact due to the Developer’s and subcontractors’ legal actions is neither probable nor remote. With respect to TPBC’s claims against the Developer and certain subcontractors, as a result of the rulings, management recognized an immaterial charge to earnings during the period. Management has continued to include an estimate of the total anticipated recovery, concluded to be both probable and reliably estimable, in receivables or costs and estimated earnings in excess of billings. To the extent new facts become known or the final recoveries or payments vary from the estimate, the impact of the change will be reflected in the financial statements at that time.