Constructlaw

Subscribe to Constructlaw's Posts

Quinn Construction, Inc. v. Skanska USA Building Inc.
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45980 (E.D. Pa. June 10, 2008)
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that no certificate of merit was required in contractor and subcontractor’s negligent misrepresentation claims against architect.
Skanska served as general contractor for two private construction projects owned by the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania. Skanska entered into two written subcontracts with Quinn for certain concrete work on the projects. Thereafter, Quinn filed a negligent misrepresentation claim against the project Architect, alleging that it relied upon the drawings, specifications, addenda and bulletins prepared by the Architect in preparing its bids, executing its subcontracts with Skanska, planning and scheduling its work and performing its work. Quinn further alleged that the Architect’s continuous design changes, its failure to complete drawings previously represented as 100% complete and its failure to timely review and approve Quinn’s shop and coordination drawings created an unreasonably and unforeseeably lengthy submission process, which prevented Quinn from timely delivering its materials to the Project and caused Quinn to incur overtime labor expenses to adhere to the Project schedule.

RLI Insurance Company v. Indian River School District
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43303 (D. Del. June 3, 2008)
In this case, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware held that a surety’s claim against an architect and construction manager for improper approval of payments to the principal was barred by the economic loss doctrine. Additionally, the court held that the surety was not released of its liability to the owner where the owner wrongfully paid the contractor, as the owner had made those payments in reliance on certifications from the architect and the construction manager.

Acme Contracting, Ltd. v. TolTest, Inc
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36355 (E.D. Mich. May 5, 2008)
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan recently had to interpret an Ohio statute (O.R.C. §4113.62) which statute dealt with the enforceability of no damages for delay provisions in construction contracts. Relying on prior cases interpreting the applicable statute, the District Court found that the subcontract which limited delay claims to a time extension only was prohibited under the statute and, therefore, void and unenforceable. Although the District Court permitted the subcontractor to recover delay damages, it also concluded that the subcontractor had not proven that it was entitled to extended home office overhead costs using the Eichleay formula and refused to award such damages.

Helena Assocs., LLC v. EFCO Corp.
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39977 (S.D.N.Y. May 14, 2008)
Owner, The Helena Associates, LLC contracted with EFCO Corporation for the work, materials and installation of aluminum windows in the construction of The Helena, a high-rise residential building in New York City. Helena brought a breach of contract action against EFCO alleging that EFCO had failed to comply with project schedules, caused delay to the project, and failed to provide sufficient manpower and supervision. Helena claimed damages in excess of $6.7 million. EFCO denied Helena’s claims arguing that the delays were caused by factors outside of its control and within the control of parties for whom Helena was responsible, and asserted a counterclaim for additional work of approximately $875 thousand. EFCO moved for partial summary judgment.

Mostellar Mansion, LLC v. Mactec Engineering & Consulting of Georgia, Inc.
2008 N.C. App. LEXIS 1011 (May 20, 2008)
Mostellar Mansion, LLC (Mansion) entered into a contract with Mactec Engineering and Consulting of Georgia, Inc. (Mactec) in connection with Mostellar’s plan to purchase a tract of land for the construction of an apartment complex (the Project Site). Under the contract, Mactec was to assess the subsurface conditions of the Project Site, determine if the Project Site was suitable for the proposed construction and provide recommendations for foundation design and site preparation for the proposed structures. The contract contained the following pertinent provisions:

Oceanside Pier View, L.P. v. Travelers Property Casualty Co. of American
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37755 (S.D. Cal. May 6, 2008)
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California considered whether the basic coverage of a $28 million Builders Risk policy applied to the increased cost to complete construction of the unbuilt portion of a mixed use project attributable to delays which resulted from the failure of a shoring wall during construction. The court held that the basic Builders Risk coverage did not apply, and that coverage for increased costs of completing structures which were not under construction at the time of failure was subject to the $100,000 limit of “additional coverage” provided for “Expediting Costs and Additional Cost of Construction Materials and Labor”.

Bell BCI Company v. United States
81 Fed. Cl. 617; 2008 U.S. Claims LEXIS 116, (April 21, 2008)
Note: This case was affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded in Bell BCI Co. v. United States, 570 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009), to be discussed in a a future issue of Constructlaw.
Plaintiff, Bell BCI Company (Bell), a general contractor, sued the Government for $6,200,672 in damages plus interest under the Contract Disputes Act for unpaid balance of the price, unresolved changes, delay damages, labor inefficiency costs and profit thereon. Bell also asserted claims on behalf of five subcontractors.

Trocon Construction Corp. v. City of New York
2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4316 (May 20, 2008)
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York held that an early completion bonus in a construction contract was not barred by a “no damages for delay” clause as it was a bid item of the contract.
The case arose out of a contract between a contractor and the City of New York for the reconstruction of part of Sixth Avenue in Manhattan. The contractor agreed to perform soil borings to locate and determine the size of underground voids believed to be contributing to sidewalk and pavement subsidence and to appropriately remedy the voids. Because the City of New York contemplated that the work on the project would interfere with vehicular and pedestrian traffic, the contract provided for various payment incentives for early completion, including an early completion bonus if work on both sides of the avenue was completed within 30 days. Delays arose principally due to a dispute over the boring operations when unexpected boulders were encountered. The contractor contended that it was not required by the contract specifications to perform borings through boulders, which should be completed using a different boring operation; the City maintained that such borings were included and should be performed using the same operation as provided for in the contract. The dispute was resolved by the Contract Dispute Resolution Board, which found that the contractor was entitled to compensation for the extra work performed. The Board claimed lack of jurisdiction to resolve the contractor’s claim for the incentive bonus for early completion of the work on the west side of the avenue.

Construction Co, Inc. v. United States
2008 U.S. Claims LEXIS 137 (May 21, 2008)
The United States Court of Federal Claims discussed the measurement of equitable adjustment for standby equipment costs in a case involving the United States Department of the Navy.
Metric Construction Co. entered into two contracts with the Navy to perform construction work on the small island of San Nicolas off the coast of California. Under the first contract, Metric agreed to make improvements and repairs to the Navy’s airfield runway on the island. The second contract called for repairs to certain of the islands roadways and storm drainage systems. Certain conditions on the island created logistical challenges for Metric in performing the work. These included limited landing areas for barges carrying equipment, bad weather, and the existence of a salt water spray over the site.

Sloan Constr. Co. v. Southco Grassing, Inc.
2008 S.C. LEXIS 99 (S.C. Mar. 24, 2008)
The South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) contracted with general contractor Southco Grassing, Inc. in connection with state highway maintenance project and, in accordance with the applicable statutory bond requirements, Southco provided a payment bond for the benefit of its subcontractors and suppliers in the full contract amount. Subsequently, Southco entered into a subcontract with subcontractor Sloan to perform asphalt paving work. In June 2001, before the paving work was completed, Southco’s payment bond was cancelled when the bond’s issuer became insolvent. Notice of the insolvency and cancellation was provided to SCDOT and SCDOT requested in writing that the Southco provide a replacement bond within seven days. Southco did not reply. In the meantime, Sloan completed its work, but in January 2002 notified SCDOT that it still had not received payment from Southco for its subcontract valued at approximately $52,000 and that the payment bond had never been replaced. In March 2003, despite that it had not made full payment to Sloan, Southco advised SCDOT that it had made all payments on the project, and SCDOT released final retainage to Southco.