Constructlaw

Subscribe to Constructlaw's Posts

Charles Boyd Construction Inc. v. Vacation Beach, Inc.
No. 5D06-2168, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 9597 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App., June 22, 2007)
Following the precedent of the United States Supreme Court in Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 (U.S. 2006), the Fifth District Court of Appeal of Florida reversed its prior decision and held that whether a contract is illegal in its entirety and, thus, an arbitration provision contained therein would be unenforceable, must in the first instance be decided by the arbitrator, and not a court.

Carlson v. SALA Architects, Inc.
2007 Minn. App. LEXIS 74
The of Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed entry of summary judgment in favor of a purchaser of architectural services, holding, among other things, that the relationship between an architect and its client is not per se a fiduciary relationship. Rather, the Court held that whether a fiduciary relationship exists was a question of fact which was unable to be resolved on summary judgment.

EBWS, LLC v. Britly Corporation
2007 VT 37; 2007 Vt. LEXIS 69 (Vt. May 25, 2007)
The Vermont Supreme Court held that the cost of an owner’s anticipated voluntary payments of employee wages and for product purchases during the temporary shutdown of a creamery pending repair of construction defects were not recoverable consequential damages because they could not reasonably have been within the contemplation of the defendant when it contracted to build the creamery.

Port Liberte Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Sordoni Construction Co.
2007 N.J. Super LEXIS 168, Docket No. A-2138-04T1 (App. Div. June 4, 2007)
The New Jersey Appellate Division was asked to consider whether a condominium and a homeowners association, not in existence at the time misrepresentations and fraudulent omissions were made to the developer of a condominium development, had standing to sue contractors or subcontractors who made such misrepresentations. Relying on the statutory scheme of the New Jersey Condominium Act, N.J.S.A. 46:8B-1 et seq., (“Condo Act”) and the Planned Real Estate Development Full Disclosure Act, N.J.S.A. 45:22A-21 et seq. (“PREDFDA”), the Appellate Division held that the associations had standing to sue.

S.M. Wilson & Company v. Urban Concrete Contractors
2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 3747, No. 04-06-00227-CV (Tex. Ct. App., May 16, 2007)
A Texas Court of Appeals held that an oral change order agreement to pay for work which was, in fact, within the scope of the original contract was unenforceable for lack of consideration.
S.M. Wilson & Company (“Wilson”) entered into a contract with the Target Corporation to construct a Target Store in Austin, Texas (the “Project”). Wilson then solicited bids from subcontractors for various aspects of the Project. Urban Concrete Contractors, Ltd. (“Urban”) submitted a bid to Wilson to perform concrete work on the Project. During the pre-bid process, Wilson sent a proposed contract including Work Package 03300, which identified the scope of concrete work that Urban would be responsible for. Work Package 03300 referred to two sets of plans describing the concrete work to be performed which were not included in the package but were available to Urban for review at no charge prior to bidding.

Charles T. Driscoll Masonry Reconstruction Co., Inc. v. County of Ulster
2007 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6068 (N.Y. App. Div., May 17, 2007)
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York held that a construction contract must be enforced according to its terms and, therefore, oral modifications of an agreement which specifically calls for modifications to be in writing will be unenforceable. Although recognizing that written modification clauses may be waived based upon the conduct of the parties, the court found that the conduct of the parties in this case did not support a waiver.

Hutton Contacting Company, Inc. v. City of Coffeyville
2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 9914, (10th Cir., April 30, 2007)
Contractor contracted to construct power and fiber-optic lines for the City. Upon completion of the project, the City refused to pay the final balance of the contract price, claiming that it was entitled to the funds as liquidated damages because the project was not completed on time. The Contractor sued to obtain the unpaid contract balance. The trial court ordered the City to pay the Contractor the retainage due minus $85,000 in liquidated damages. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, applying Kansas law, considered: 1) whether the contract’s force-majeure clause excused the Contractor for delays caused by late deliveries from its pole supplier; 2) whether the contract’s liquidated-damages provision was enforceable; and 3) whether the contract’s liquidated damages provision allowed the District Court to apportion delays between the Contractor and the City.

Menorah Home and Hosp. for the Aged and Infirm v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co.
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27684 (E.D.N.Y., April 13, 2007)
The District Court for the Eastern District of New York held that a liquidating agreement between an Owner and a Surety was valid and enforceable, even though it permitted the Owner to retain any recovery it obtained from the third-party, rather than having money pass-through to the surety.
The case arose out of a project to build and renovate facilities for Menorah Home and Hospital for the Aged and Infirm (“Owner”). The Owner entered into a contract with J.A. Jones Construction Group, LLC (“Jones”) for the Project. When Jones defaulted, Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company (“FFIC”), Jones’ surety, took over and completed the Project. The Owner subsequently sued FFIC alleging that FFIC had breached its performance bond obligations by failing to complete the Project in a timely manner and correct deficiencies in the work performed by Jones.

Plasticert, Inc. v. Westfield Insurance Company
2007 Pa. Super 124, 2007 Pa. Super. LEXIS 820 (Pa. Super Ct., May 1, 2007)
Plasticert manufactures thermoplastic wheels used in gravity flow product lines. A customer sued it because wheels that the customer purchased were breaking and cracking, and were determined not to have been manufactured to the customer’s specifications.
Plasticert carried general commercial liability (“CGL”) insurance and an umbrella policy both issued by Westfield Insurance Company. Plasticert filed a declaratory judgment action against Westfield, to determine, inter alia, coverage under the policies. The trial court determined, and the parties conceded, that the exclusionary language in both policies was similar so that the outcome of the instant matter would be the same under both policies.

Lanier at McEver, L.P. v. Planners and Engineers Collaborative, Inc.
2007 GA App LEXIS 539 (Ga. Ct. App., May 16, 2007)
In this case, the Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed a decision limiting an owner/developer’s damages against the project engineer to the fees paid for the engineer’s services.
The court held that a damages limitation clause that limits the amount of damages an engineer could possibly pay to an owner/developer is neither a violation of public policy nor an unenforceable penalty. Lanier, was the owner/developer of an apartment complex. Lanier hired the defendant engineering firm PEC, to design various aspect of the apartment complex, including the storm sewer and sanitary sewer drainage and management system. The engineering agreement contained a limitation of liability provision stating that the total aggregate liability of PEC and its subconsultants to Lanier “shall not exceed PEC’s total fee for services rendered on this Project.” Following construction of the Project according to the plans and specifications prepared by PEC, problems arose with the storm water system that required modification and repair by the owner. As a result, Lanier sued PEC for negligent design, breach of express contractual warranty and litigation expenses.