480 A.2d 795, 795 (Md.App.1984); Kensington Corp. v. Michigan, 74 Mich.App. 417, 253 N.W.2d 781, 783 (Mich.Ct.App.1977); Buckley & Co., Inc. v. New Jersey, 140 N.J.Super. 289, 356 A.2d 56, 73-74 (N.J.Super. Ct. Law Div.1975); D.A. Parrish & Sons v. County Sanitation Dist. No. 4, 174 Cal.App.2d 406, 344 P.2d 883, 888 (Cal.Dist.Ct.App.1959). We found at least five cases wherein the court did not allow a pass-through claim. See, e.g., Bd. of Governors for Higher Educ. v. Infinity Constr. Servs., Inc., 795 A.2d 1127, 1129 (R.I.2002); Farrell Constr. Co. v. Jefferson Parish, 693 F.Supp. 490, 498 (E.D.La.1988); Dep’t of Transp. v. Claussen Paving Co., 246 Ga. 807, 273 S.E.2d 161, 164 (Ga.1980); Barry, Bette & Led Duke, Inc. 51-52. 10 . Compare Frank Coluccio Constr. Co., 779 S.W.2d at 552 (<HOLDING>); Cam Constr. Co., Inc., 480 A.2d at 799
holding that the nondebtor spouse has the burden of proving nondischargeability holding that defendant has the burden of proving that a product has been altered unless the product has been lost whereupon plaintiff must bear the burden of persuasion if the defense of substantial change is raised holding that the burden of proving lack of negligence is on the owner holding that the defendant has the burden of proving a fair and just reason for withdrawal of a guilty plea holding that the governmentowner has the burden of proving that the prime contractor has been relieved of responsibility to pay any recovery to the subcontractor