Constructlaw

Subscribe to Constructlaw's Posts

A.A. Bellucci Constr. Co. v. United States Surety Co.
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8369 (M.D. Pa., Feb. 2, 2010)

CSI Engineering, DC, P.C. (“CSI”) entered into a contract with a division of the U.S. Department of Labor to act as the general contractor for one of its construction projects. In turn, CSI subcontracted a portion of the work to A.A. Bellucci (“Bellucci”). The contract between CSI and Bellucci required mediation and arbitration to resolve disputes between them. To secure payment to all of its subcontractors, including Bellucci, CSI furnished Miller Act payment bonds from United States Surety Company (“Surety”) and U.S. Specialty Insurance Company (“Speciality”).

Hunt Construction Group, Inc. v. National Wrecking Corporation
587 F.3d 1119; 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 25909 (2009)

Plaintiff, Hunt Construction Group (“Hunt”), commenced an action against one of its subcontractors, National Wrecking Corporation (“National”) and against two sureties (the “Sureties”) on National’s performance bond. The Sureties argued that Hunt failed to give timely notice of default depriving the Sureties of a realistic opportunity to exercise their rights under the bond to cure National’s defective performance.

GTECH Corp. v. Commonwealth, Dept. of Revenue
965 A.2d 1276 (Pa. Commw. 2009)

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania considered whether the Pennsylvania Procurement Code provides the exclusive remedy for aggrieved bidders to challenge the procedure and outcome of bidding contests in the context of a procurement for the Pennsylvania Lottery. The Court found that while the Procurement Code provides an exclusive remedy for substantive challenges (i.e., a general right of protest to an offeror who is aggrieved in connection with the solicitation or award of a contract), it did not provide a remedy for procedural challenges.

U.S. for Use and Benefit of Greenmoor, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co.
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113153 (W.D. PA 12/04/2009)

The Court held that a properly terminated subcontractor was nevertheless entitled to payment for contract work and extras performed prior to termination, less certain offsets for contractor’s damages. Subcontractor was also entitled to interest at 1% per month under a prompt payment statute, but because it was properly terminated was not entitled to lost profit on the terminated portion of the subcontract.

Charter Foods Inc. v. Derek Engineering of Ohio, Inc.
2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 115477 (E.D. KY. Dec. 11, 2009)

The District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky held that a general contractor, who had performed excavation work on a site in accordance with the plans and specifications, could not be held liable for breach of contract as a matter of law, but could potentially be held liable to the owner for negligence if the contractor breached the duty of care it owed the owner.

U.S. ex rel Pioneer Construction v. Pride Enterprises
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110935 (M.D. Pa., November 27, 2009)

The court denied the contractor’s claim for summary judgment, which was based on the theory that the subcontractor’s claims were barred by the releases it submitted with partial payment requests, holding that the contractor’s submission of the subcontractor’s claims to the government as part of an equitable adjustment request supported an inference that the parties by course of performance did not regard the releases as barring the claims. Further, the court held that notwithstanding Pennsylvania law to the contrary, federal law allows recovery of delay costs under a Miller Act payment bond.

McKinney & Moore, Inc. v. City of Longview, Texas
2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 9299 (Tex. App., Dec. 8, 2009)

The Court of Appeals of Texas for the Fourteenth District held that a general contractor’s acceptance of final payment barred its claims for compensation for extras. The Court relied on the express release language in the parties’ contract to support its ruling.

The City of Longview, Texas (the “Owner”) retained McKinney & Moore, Inc. (“MMI”) to serve as a general contractor for the construction of the Lake O’ the Pines Raw Water Intake Structure (the “Project”). The parties’ contract contained various provisions related to subsurface conditions and the Owner supplied reports regarding such conditions. Among other things, the contract also provided that the Owner was responsible for design accuracy and sufficiency of the contract documents. The contract further addressed circumstances under which MMI would be entitled to reimbursement for damages and the effect of MMI’s acceptance of final payment.

Excavation Technologies, Inc. v. Columbia Gas Co. of PA
2009 Pa. LEXIS 2794 (Pa., December 29, 2009)

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that a utility company’s failure to properly mark the location of its lines under the Pennsylvania One-Call Act did not render it liable to an excavation contractor who struck the lines and suffered purely economic losses. It rejected the argument that the utility should be liable under § 552(3) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts because of its public duty to mark the lines.

Federal Insurance Co. v. Philotimo, Inc.
2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 108105 (W.D.P.A. Nov. 19, 2009)

Homeowner hired defendant to inspect and clean its fireplace and chimney after observing chunks of mortar falling into the fireplace. Homeowner showed defendant’s technicians the fallen mortar. The technicians cleaned and visually inspected the chimney and reported to homeowner that it “looked good.” Thereafter, an extensive fire swept through the house causing over $400,000 in damage.
Following the fire, homeowner’s insurer commissioned an inspection which revealed numerous signs of damage and disrepair to the chimney that suggested defendant’s technicians should have instructed homeowner not to use fireplace and chimney until repairs were made.

Life Receivables Trust v. Syndicate 102 at Lloyd’s of London
2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 24977 (Nov. 25, 2008)

The Second Circuit held that section 7 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) does not permit an arbitrator to compel pre-hearing document discovery from non-parties to the arbitration. However, the court noted that a non party could be subpoenaed to produce documents at a preliminary hearing on non-merits issues before one or more arbitrators.