Constructlaw

Subscribe to Constructlaw's Posts

Nello Construction Co. v. Commwth of PA, Dept of General Services
(Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Board of Claims, March 20, 2006)
Nello brought claims against the Department of General Services (“DGS”), arising from a contract entered into by Plaintiff and DGS on June 7, 2001, for the construction of a visitors’ center, museum, parking lot and other attendant facilities to be built in Beaver County, PA on behalf of the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. The initial value of the Contract was $ 2,433,000.00 and, with a contractually mandated duration of 335 days from the initial job conference within which to complete the work, the contemplated contract completion date was May 29, 2002. Because of various delays, final inspection on the project did not occur until January 30, 2003, 246 days past the contemplated contract completion date. Plaintiff requested damages of $ 462,010.48 for costs and expenses resulting from construction delays caused by Defendant’s actions and inactions.

Turner Constr. Co. v. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co.
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32640 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2007)
Plaintiff Turner Construction Company entered into a construction management agreement with Central Synagogue in Manhattan for renovation work which included the installation of central air conditioning. The HVAC contractor on the project was Trident Mechanical Systems, Inc. During the project, a fire broke out, started by an employee of the roofing contractor who had been using a propane torch. The fire, which ordinarily would have caused minimal damage, was accelerated by exhaust fans that had been installed in the roof, and caused several millions of dollars damage to the landmark Synagogue. The Synagogue’s insurer, Wausau, sued Turner and some of the project’s contractors, to recover amounts it paid the Synagogue. The trial was bifurcated, trying liability first, then damages. Liability was determined as: Turner 50%, the roofing contractor 30%, the general contractor 15%, and Trident 0%. A settlement was reached before the damages portion of the trial began.

Quality Trust Inc. v. Cajun Contractors, Inc.
2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 25431 (D. Kan. 2007)
The District Court granted the prime contractor summary judgment on its right to terminate a subcontractor for failure to provide submittals and sufficient work force, while at the same time holding that the contractor was not entitled to summary judgment on the subcontractor’s claims for delay damages and contract balances.
Prime contractor, Cajun Contractors, Inc. (“Cajun”), entered into a general contract with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (“COE”) for the construction of a wastewater facility at Fort Riley, Kansas. The project entailed the partial demolition of an existing facility and the construction of a new facility. Cajun subcontracted with Quality Trust, Inc. (“QTI”) to erect eight metal buildings as part of the new facility. Under the subcontract, Cajun was to construct the concrete building pads, to procure the buildings through a third party supplier, and to provide the buildings for QTI to erect and finish.

Scandale Associated Builders & Engineers, Ltd. v. Bell Justice Facilities Corp.
No. 4:03-CV-1773, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25112 (M.D. Pa. April 4, 2007)
In January 2001, Scandale Associated Builders & Engineers, Ltd. (“Scandale”) entered into a subcontract (“Subcontract”) with Bell Justice Facilities Corporation (“Bell”) for work on the construction of the U.S. Penitentiary/Federal Prison Camp at Canaan, Pennsylvania (“Prison”). The Subcontract required Scandale to perform cast-in-place concrete work on the Prison. Bell was the general contractor and the United States through the Federal Bureau of Prisons was the Owner.

Universal Underwriters Insurance Co. v. A. Richard Kacin, Inc.
916 A.2d 686 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007)
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that the American Institute of Architects’ (“AIA”) form waiver of subrogation clause barred a subrogation claim even where the loss was created by the contractor’s own negligence. Relying on Penn Avenue Place Assoc., L.P. v. Century Steel Erectors, Inc., 798 A.2d 256 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002), the court held that a warranty provision did not invalidate the waiver of subrogation and opined that the warranty provision provided a remedy only to the extent that losses were not covered by insurance. The court further held that an insurer does not need to be party to the contract containing the waiver of subrogation clause nor does the insurer need to consent to or have notice of the waiver of subrogation clause in order for it to be enforceable.

Dynalectric Co. v. Whittenberg Constr. Co.
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27025 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 10, 2007)
Defendant project-owner Luther F. Carson Four Rivers Center, Inc. contracted with Whittenberg Construction Company to serve as general contractor in the construction of a fine arts facility and with defendant Ray Black & Son, Inc. to serve as construction manager. Whittenberg contracted the electrical contracting work to Plaintiff Dynalectric. Dynalectric brought suit against Four Rivers and Black, alleging that they had caused its work to take longer and cost more than anticipated and as a result Dynalectric had not been fully compensated for its work on the project.

DGS v. Pittsburgh Building Co.
2007 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 160 (Pa. Commw. Ct. April 5, 2007)
The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court held that a contractor was entitled to recover penalty interest and attorney fees under the Pennsylvania Prompt Payment Act from the Department of General Services (“DGS”) when DGS had engaged in arbitrary and vexatious conduct by withholding payment for costs associated with a five-month suspension and unsuitable soil conditions when DGS was aware of, yet failed to disclose, problematic soil conditions.

Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, Inc.
2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 7808 (3d Cir., Apr. 5, 2007 )
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that, despite the commercial practice to the contrary, a subcontractor was not bound by the qualified bid it submitted to a general contractor. The subcontractor’s bid plainly stated that the price was for information purposes only and should not be relied on by the recipient.
General Contractor Fletcher-Harlee solicited subcontract bids for concrete work. As is an industry custom, Fletcher-Harlee stated in its solicitation letter that bids must be held open for a minimum of 60 days and also that the subcontractor must agree to be accountable for the prices and proposals submitted. Pote Concrete Contractors submitted a written bid. However, Pote included a disclaimer in its submission. In the bid, Pote stated that the price quote was for informational purposes only, was not a firm offer, should not be relied on and that Pote did not agree to be held liable for any of the terms that it submitted.

Titan Stone, Tile & Masonry v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc.
Civ. No. 05-3362, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19489 (D.N.J. March 19, 2007)
The Court decided several motions for summary judgment filed by a prime contractor to claims of a subcontractor. Among the motions decided, the Court addressed the duty of good faith and fair dealing attendant to an obligation to evaluate payment applications, the breadth of a “pay-if-paid” clause, whether a monthly release executed with a payment application barred claims for extra work performed after the pay period in the attendant payment application and whether the plaintiff adequately plead its claim for violation of the New Jersey Trust Fund Act.

Lexicon, Inc. v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America
No. 04-6086, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 3113 (6th Cir. Feb. 9, 2006)
Icon, Inc. served as a subcontractor on a steel plant expansion project in Kentucky. Pursuant to its subcontract, Icon secured a payment bond, with Safeco Insurance Company of America as surety. Lexicon, Inc. performed work on the project as a subcontractor to Icon. Lexicon incurred additional costs on the project as a result of delays for which it was not at fault. Lexicon brought a claim for these “delay and impact” costs against Safeco, as surety for Icon.