Constructlaw

Subscribe to Constructlaw's Posts

Beckwith Machinery Company v. Asset Recovery Group, Inc.
2005 Pa. Super. 429, 2005 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4276 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005)
In Beckwith Machinery Company v. Asset Recovery Group, Inc., et al., 2005 Pa. Super. 429 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005), the Court held that invoices for major repairs in the nature of capital improvements to heavy construction equipment were not covered by the terms of a payment bond. The Court reasoned that the repairs referenced in the invoices at issue could not be classified as ordinary maintenance performed for consumption over the course of the project, but rather were services which a contractor would retain the benefit of on the completion of work to be used by him in a like manner on subsequent projects.

Webber v. McBride & Sons Contracting Co.
No. ED86076, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1846 (Mo. Ct. App. Dec. 13, 2005)
A painter suffered personal injuries after falling through a stairwell hole in the floor of an unfinished single-family residence. The stairwell hole had been cut by predecessor subcontractors no longer on the site. At the time of the fall, the general contractor, which also owned the residence, had already accepted the work of the subcontractors as completed.

LBL Skysystems (USA), Inc. v. APG-America, Inc.
No. 02-5379, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19065 (E.D.Pa. Aug. 31, 2005)
In LBL Skysystems (USA), Inc. v. APG-America, Inc., No. 02-5379, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19065 (E.D.Pa. Aug. 31, 2005), the District Court concluded that a subcontractor was contractually obligated to continue performance, despite its dispute with the contractor over alleged extra work. Further, the Court concluded that the subcontractor was in the wrong, as its course of performance demonstrated that certain steel work was, in fact, within the subcontractor’s original work scope. As a result, the Court concluded that the contractor’s decision to terminate the subcontract was proper.

Daniel Marr & Son Co. v. Coreslab Structures, Inc. et al.
No. 03-1880, 2005 Mass. Super. LEXIS 545, (Mass. Supp. Nov. 21, 2005)
In Daniel Marr & Son Co. v. Coreslab Structures, Inc. et al., No. 03-1880, 2005 Mass. Super. LEXIS 545, (Mass. Supp. Nov. 21, 2005), plaintiff sub-subcontractor sued defendant subcontractor for various breaches of contract related to the construction and erection of precast concrete panels. The original scope of work dictated the erection of the precast panels would proceed on a floor-by-floor basis. During the project, the defendant order plaintiff to alter the erection sequence, requiring plaintiff to install the precast panels on an as-directed basis. Plaintiff subsequently asserted a claim for productivity inefficiencies related to the revised sequence and other issues. Defendant attacked Plaintiff’s damages calculations as an “unsegregated partial total cost claim.”

Richard F. Kline, Inc. v. Shook Excavating & Hauling, Inc.
165 Md. App. 262, 885 A.2d 381, 2005 Md. App. LEXIS 273 (Maryland Ct Spec. App., October 31, 2005)
Richard F. Kline, Inc. (“Kline”) contracted with the City of Frederick, Maryland (the “City”) for the construction of a flood control project. Kline subcontracted with Shook Excavating & Hauling, Inc. (“Shook”) to perform a portion of the excavation work. The subcontract did not contemplate Shook’s removal of any contaminated soils. When such soils were discovered, the City and project engineer directed Kline to begin remediation. Kline in turn requested that Shook perform this work, and Shook did so. Eventually, the Maryland Department of the Environment determined that the soils were not in fact contaminated. Disagreeing with this determination, however, Kline and Shook continued to remediate the soil before using it as backfill.

Environmental Energy Partners Inc. v. Siemens Building Technologies,Inc., et al.
Nos. 26521 & 26702, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1568 (Mo. Ct. App., Oct. 25, 2005)
In Environmental Energy Partners Inc. v. Siemens Building Technologies, Inc., et al., Nos. 26521 & 26702, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1568, a payment dispute arose between a contractor and its subcontractor on a hospital renovation project. When the contractor refused to pay the subcontractor the remaining subcontract balance ($201,178.75) on the basis that the subcontractor’s work was not completed, the subcontractor filed a mechanic’s lien against the property. The subcontractor then filed a petition to enforce its lien, naming the contractor and owner as defendants. Because of the subcontractor’s lien, the owner withheld the last installment payment of $148,475 due to the contractor under their agreement. Thereafter, and unbeknownst to the contractor, the subcontractor and the owner entered into a confidential “Settlement Agreement and Release” under which the owner agreed to pay directly to the subcontractor the $148,475 amount that it was withholding from the general contractor in exchange for a release of the lien upon entry of judgment in the litigation.

American Rock Mechanics, Inc. v. N. Abbonizio Contractors, Inc. and Fidelity and Deposit Company of
2005 PA Super 390; 2005 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4086 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005)
In American Rock Mechanics, Inc. v. N. Abbonizio Contractors, Inc. and Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, 2005 Pa. Super. 390, (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005), the Court held that the terms of the parties’ subcontract concerning time for payment took precedence over the those set forth in the Commonwealth Procurement Code, 62 Pa.C.S. § 3933.

Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. David A. Bramble, Inc.
388 Md. 195, 879 A.2d 101 (Md. July 21, 2005)
In connection with construction of a resort hotel project, general contractor Clark Construction provided a payment bond securing its obligation to pay its subcontractors for all labor, material, and equipment required. The bond was a standard American Institute of Architects document A312 form, used without alteration to the form language, issued jointly by three sureties. In the event claim was made against the bond, it provided that the surety would “Send an answer to the Claimant, with a copy to the Owner, within 45 days after receipt of the claim, stating the amounts that are undisputed and the basis for challenging any amounts that are disputed.”

Bernotas v. Super Fresh Food Markets, Inc.
863 A.2d 478, 2004 Pa. LEXIS 3238 (Dec. 22, 2004)
Barbara Bernotas sustained serious injuries when she fell into a hole at a construction area inside a Super Fresh store. Bernotas sued Super Fresh for her injuries. Super Fresh filed cross-claims against the general contractor, and its electrical subcontractor, seeking indemnity for any damages under those parties’ contracts. Bernotas settled for $200,000, with each defendant contributing 1/3 of the amount. The trial court then held a bench trial in which Super Fresh sought indemnity from the general contractor pursuant to the prime contract, and the general contractor in turn sought indemnity from its electrical subcontractor pursuant to their subcontract. The Supreme Court’s opinion addresses only the scope of the subcontractor’s indemnity obligations to the general contractor.

Montgomery v. Decision One Financial Network
2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3031 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 1, 2005)
A borrower brought an action against her lender in connection with the lender’s institution of foreclosure proceedings. The lender moved to dismiss the complaint and sought an order compelling plaintiff’s compliance with the claims resolution provisions contained in the parties’ arbitration agreement. Relying upon the Pennsylvania Superior Court’s decision in Lytle v. CitiFinancial Services, Inc., 2002 Pa. Super. 327, 810 A.2d 643 (2002), the borrower argued in opposition that the arbitration agreement was presumptively unconscionable because it excepted from the scope of arbitrable disputes certain remedies available only to the lender, such as foreclosure. In the Lytle case, the Pennsylvania Superior Court several years earlier declared that “under Pennsylvania law, the reservation by [the lender] of access to the courts for itself to the exclusion of the consumer creates a presumption of unconscionability.”