Constructlaw

Subscribe to Constructlaw's Posts

Ingrassia Constr. Co., Inc. v. Vernon Township Bd. of Educ.
No. A-3954-00T2F, 2001 N.J. Super. LEXIS 411 (N.J. Super. App. Div. Nov. 8, 2001)
Ingrassia Construction Co., Inc. (“Ingrassia”) entered into a contract with the Vernon Township Board of Education (“Board”) pursuant to which Ingrassia agreed to perform renovations of and additions to the Vernon Township High School. Ingrassia’s performance of its work scope was subject to several milestone dates. Despite this obligation, Ingrassia consistently failed to perform in accordance with the project schedule.

Polydyne, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia
No. 2454 C.D. 2001 (Pa. Commw. Ct. April 4, 2002)
The City of Philadelphia solicited bids for the provision of polymers for use by the City Water Department. Cytec Industries, Inc. (“Cytec”) was the successful bidder. Polydyne, Inc. (“Polydyne”), a disappointed bidder, filed a claim against the City of Philadelphia, seeking to enjoin the award to Cytec. After review of the merits, the trial court rejected the request for equitable relief.

SME Indus., Inc. v. Thompson, Ventulett, Stainback & Assocs., Inc.
C.A. No. 990869, 2001 Utah LEXIS 90 (June 26, 2001)
In SME Indus., Inc. v. Thompson, Ventulett, Stainback & Assocs., Inc., the Supreme Court of Utah addressed the ability to assign of claims for damages for breach of contract to a party who is not in privity with the alleged wrongdoer. That court determined that summary judgment was inappropriate because it was ambiguous whether the parties intended to include the assignment of causes of action under a “no assignment” clause. Id. at *16.

Wausau Business Insurance Company v. Turner Construction Company
No. 99 Civ. 0682 (RWS), 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5821(SDNY May 9, 2001)
Turner Construction Company (“Construction Manager”) entered into a written agreement with Central Synagogue (the “Owner”) to provide construction management services in connection with renovations of the Central Synagogue Sanctuary (the “Agreement”). The Agreement provided that the Owner would “defend, indemnify and hold the Construction Manager harmless from claims arising out of the acts or omissions on the part of the architects, engineers, attorneys or contractors.” However, the Agreement qualified this obligation by stating that “it is understood and agreed that the Construction Manager shall be liable to the Owner . . . and shall indemnify Owner against Loss, liability, damages, costs and expenses . . . for any negligence or willful misconduct of Construction Manager . . . which results in any loss, claim or injury to the Owner, its successors or assigns.” The Agreement also provided that “Owner shall name the Construction Manager an additional insured party or cause its Contractors to so name the Construction Manager an additional insured party on the Contractors’ insurances.” The Owner opted for the latter, and the Construction Manager was named an additional insured on the contractors’ policies.

BAE Automated Sys., Inc. v. Morse Diesel Int’l, Inc.
01 Civ. 0217 (SAS), 2001 U.S. Dist. Lexis 6682 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2001)
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted an order staying all proceedings in a construction dispute pending resolution by a dispute resolution board (“DRB”) in this case. This case involved a breach of contract claim brought by BAE Automated Systems, Inc. (“BAE”), a baggage handling subcontractor, against AMEC Construction Management, Inc. (“AMEC”), the construction manager of a project to build a new terminal at John F. Kennedy International Airport (the “Project”). AMEC then brought a third-party claim against the owner of the Project, Terminal One Group Association (“TOGA”).

McCandlish Electric, Inc. v. Will Construction Co.
No. 18935-0-III, 2001 Wash. App. LEXIS 1364 (June 28, 2001)
Will Construction Co. (“Will”) was awarded a contract from the City of Leavenworth for renovations to a wastewater treatment plant. In its successful bid, Will had used a bid from McCandlish Electric, Inc. (“McCandlish”) submitted for the electrical subcontract. Will also listed McCandlish, pursuant to contract, as the electrical subcontractor in its bid submission to the City.

Cullum Mechanical Construction, Inc. v. South Carolina Baptist Hospital
Case Volume, Reporter: 344 S.C. 426, 544 S.E.2d 838 (2001)
Jenkins, Hancock & Sides Architects & Planners, Inc. (the “Architect”) entered into a design contract for the renovation of a medical center. Under its contract, the Architect was responsible for reviewing the General Contractor’s payment applications and certifying amounts due. Moreover, the Architect had the ability to withhold certification if the General Contractor failed to pay its subcontractors.

Randa/Madison Joint Venture III v. Dahlberg,
239 F.3d 1264, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 1736 (U.S. Fed. Cir., Feb. 7, 2001)
Randa/Madison Joint Venture III (“Contractor”) entered into a construction contract with the United States Army Corp of Engineers (“Government”) to perform de-watering of an excavation for a pump house foundation that was to extend forty (40) feet below the existing ground surface. The contract included the standard differing site conditions clause set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) § 52.236-2 (2000). In addition, the contract included two separate clauses which addressed the Contractor’s obligations to inspect the site and materials produced by the Government that were made available for inspection. The first clause required that the Contractor acknowledge that it has satisfied itself as to the character, quality, and quantity of surface and subsurface material or obstacles to be encountered insofar as this information is reasonably ascertainable from any inspection of the site, including all exploratory work done by the Government. The second clause addressed physical data and stated that whenever subsurface exploration logs are presented in the Contract Documents, soil test results and soil and rock samples are available for inspection. These test results and samples were not included in the contract documents.

A. Servidone, Inc. v. Bridge Technologies, LLC,
2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1407 (N.Y. App. Div. Feb. 8, 2001)
Servidone contracted with the State Department of Transportation to build three bridges. Pursuant to that contract, Servidone subcontracted with Bridge Technologies, Inc., for installation of the superstructures of two of the bridges. During the performance of the subcontract work, Bridge Technologies, Inc. was dissolved, and its parent corporation, Bridge Technologies Ltd. continued the performance of the subcontract. Servidone, however, was not notified of the dissolution.

Eastern Steel Constructors, Inc. v. City of Salem,
No. 28202, 2001 W. Va. LEXIS 3 (W. Va. Feb. 9, 2001)
The City of Salem, West Virginia, entered into a contract with Kanakanui Associates pursuant to which Kanakanui was to provide engineering and architectural services for improvements to Salem’s existing sewer system. Kanakanui produced plans and specifications to be used to solicit bids for the improvements. Eastern Steel Constructors, Inc. bid on a portion of the project relying on the plans provided by Kanakanui and was awarded the contract.