Constructlaw

Subscribe to Constructlaw's Posts

Atlantic City Associates LLC v. Carter & Burgess Consultants, Inc.
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25144 (D.N.J. Mar. 27, 2008)
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey recently had to decide whether it was proper for a general contractor to set off potential claims on a private project against amounts owed to the same subcontractor on a public project. Relying upon the New Jersey Public Works Bond Act and New Jersey Trust Fund Act, the District Court concluded that it was improper for the general contractor to set off the amounts because a contractual setoff provision was insufficient to rise to the level of a waiver of the subcontractor’s rights under the Acts.

Current Builders of Florida, Inc. v. First Sealord Surety, Inc.
2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 4698 (April 2, 2008)
The Court of Appeals of Florida held that a jury finding that a contractor which terminated a subcontractor failed to provide notice in accordance with the terms of a performance bond was sustainable, given that the contractor did not tender the remaining contract balance to the surety or give it an opportunity to provide for the completion of the work. Accordingly, the surety’s obligations under the bond were not triggered.

Cleveland Construction, Inc. v. Ohio Pubic Employees Retirement System No. 07AP-574, 2008 Ohio 1630
Appellant, Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (“PERS”) is the owner of an office tower project (the “Project”) in Columbus, Ohio. PERS entered into a $6.3 million interior trades contract with Appellee, Cleveland Construction, Inc. (“CCI”) to build portions of the $90 million office tower. The jury in the lower court case found that PERS materially breached its contract with CCI by failing to properly schedule and coordinate the project work.

Hunt Construction Group, Inc. v. National Wrecking Corp.
2008 U.S. LEXIS 27859 (D.D.C. Apr. 8, 2008)
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia discussed the split of authority on the issue of when a surety’s obligations are triggered under a performance bond, ultimately holding that a surety is liable only if timely notice is given of the obligee’s default, allowing the surety to exercise its options under the performance bond.
Hunt Construction Group (“Hunt”) was the prime contractor on a hotel construction project in Washington, D.C. National Wrecking Corporation (“NWC”) subcontracted with Hunt to perform excavation and other work on the hotel project. In April 2004, approximately five months after entering into the subcontract, NWC completed the work. Hunt alleged that NWC delayed in completing the excavation work, and as a result, Hunt was required to accelerate other parts of the work, so that it incurred costs in excess of $800,000 due to NWC’s delay.

Donald M. Durkin Contracting, Inc. v. City of Newark
2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 28987 (D. Del. Apr. 9, 2008)
The Delaware District Court held that a contractor who is improperly terminated is entitled to recover its expectation interest or the unpaid contract price less the amount it would have cost the contractor to complete the job. Other damages which are causally connected to the owner’s breach are recoverable as well, but costs of pre-termination performance or post-termination losses which are not causally connected are not recoverable. Further, the Court affirmed that Delaware follows the “American Rule’ which precludes recovery for attorneys fees incurred in consequence of the owner’s breach.

Regent Ins. Co. v. Storm King Contr., Inc.
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16513 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2008)
In June 1999, the owner of The Emerson Inn hired Storm King to act as its general contractor in the remodeling and rebuilding of the Inn. Under their agreement, Storm King was not responsible for the design of the project or for compliance with applicable law, building codes, or regulations, and it was agreed that the remedy for any defective work would be limited to correction of the defects. Storm King entered into a subcontract with Sullivan Fire Protection for the installation of a fire sprinkler system. The subcontract incorporated the terms of the agreement between the owner and Storm King. Its scope of work section provided that Sullivan’s work was to be performed in accordance with the plans and specifications prepared by the design professional.

URS Group, Inc. v. Tetra Tech FW, Inc. and Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation
2008 Colo. App. LEXIS 159 (February 7, 2008)
The Court of Appeal of Colorado held that the plaintiff subcontractor did not assume the risk of differing site conditions and thus its claims for differing site conditions and mutual mistake were viable. Moreover, the Court held that the economic loss rule did not bar plaintiff’s negligent misrepresentation claim, because the alleged misrepresentation occurred during negotiations before the contract was formed.

John A. Russell Corp. v. Fine Line Drywall, Inc. and Acstar Insurance Co.
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13098 (D. Vt., February 21, 2008)
The United States District Court for the District of Vermont held that only a material breach of contract constitutes a default triggering the year-long period provided by 8 V.S.A. § 3663 for commencing an action.
In John Russell Corp., Subcontractor began work on the metal framing and gypsum drywall systems of a project in November 2003 and ceased work on November 10, 2004. Prior to beginning work, Subcontractor secured a performance and payment bond (the “Bond”) with Contractor as obligee. During the Fall of 2004, Subcontractor’s presence at the job site was sporadic. Daily work logs indicated that Subcontractor was absent from the job site on six occasions during September and October 2004, the periods of absence ranging from one to five days. After November 10, 2004, Subcontractor never returned to the work site. Contractor made repeated attempts to contact Subcontractor to determine whether it planned to complete performance of its obligations under the Subcontract. Subcontractor did not respond to any of those attempts and had no further communication with Contractor. By early December 2004, Contractor “suspected [that Subcontractor had] abandoned the project.”

Hall Street Associates, LLC v. Mattel, Inc.
2008 U.S. LEXIS 2911 (U.S. Mar. 25, 2008)
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that in an arbitration case subject to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), the scope of judicial review of an award could not be expanded by agreement of the parties beyond the grounds for vacating or modifying an award specified in the FAA.
The case originally stemmed from a lease dispute between the toy maker Mattel and its landlord, Hall Street Associates. Mattel terminated its lease when the property’s water tested for high levels of contaminants, which was the result of the previous tenant’s use of the property as a manufacturing site. Hall Street filed suit claiming that a provision in the lease obligated Mattel to indemnify Hall Street for the costs of cleaning up the site.

Dugan Construction Company, Inc. v. New Jersey Turnpike Authority
941 A.2d 622 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2008)
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, recently had to decide whether a contractor was entitled to the contractual per unit price for the removal of substantial quantities of groundwater where the estimated quantity in the bid documents was grossly understated and contractor failed to bring the error to the public entities’ attention. Analyzing the case utilizing principles of patent ambiguity and reformation, the Court held that the mistake in the bid documents warranted reformation of the contract and the contractor was only permitted to recoup the actual value of the work performed.