Photo of John Gazzola

John Gazzola

Subscribe to John Gazzola's Posts

John focuses his practice on litigation associated with construction projects. He represents project owners, EPC contractors, construction managers, general contractors, subcontractors and material suppliers in disputes arising from a wide array of construction projects, including pipelines, mass transit systems, and large commercial and residential buildings.

Contact:Read more about John Gazzola

Nova Contr., Inc. v. City of Olympia, No. 48644-0-II, 2017 Wash. App. LEXIS 913 (Ct. App. Apr. 18, 2017)

This case arose out of a public project in which the City of Olympia (“City”) hired Nova Contracting, Inc. (“Nova”) to replace a culvert. A prior City project on which Nova completed work ended with Nova receiving extra compensation due to the City’s design errors and, as a result, a grudge held by some City staff against Nova.  The present contract required Nova to send submittals describing its plans for bypass pumping and excavation to the City’s engineer for approval before it could begin work.  The City’s decision regarding submittals was final and Nova bore the risk and cost of delay due to any non-approval.
The City issued its Notice to Proceed on August 11, 2014, but Nova could not begin construction due to the City’s rejection of its submittals. Nearly one month later, the City declared Nova to be in default because it failed to provide satisfactory submittals and failed to mobilize to the site.  Coincidentally, that same day, Nova had mobilized to the site; the City, however, later ordered Nova to cease work because it had commenced operations before obtaining the requisite approval.  Nova protested the City’s declaration of default, but the City terminated the contract on September 24.

Nova filed suit against the City for breach of contract, claiming that its handling of the submittals imposed requirements that were not part of the project’s specifications, thereby delaying Nova’s performance to a point where the project could not be timely completed. In support thereof, Nova’s witnesses declared that the City had appeared to be reviewing the submittals with the goal of rejecting them as a sort of “gotcha” review employed to prevent Nova’s performance.  The City moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted its motion.  Nova appealed, arguing that there existed genuine issues of fact as to why the project was not completed and that the City had breached its duty of good faith by preventing Nova from attaining its justified contractual expectations.  The City argued that the duty of good faith did not apply because it had unconditional authority to accept or reject Nova’s submittals.

Amberwood Dev., Inc. v. Swann’s Grading, Inc., No. 1 CA-CV 15-0786, 2017 Ariz. App. Unpub. LEXIS 207 (Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2017)

This case arose out of a housing development project, with Amberwood Development Inc. (“Amberwood”) acting as the general contractor and Swann’s Grading, Inc. (“SGI”), as a subcontractor. In their subcontract agreement, SGI agreed to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Amberwood from claims and “liability of every kind whatsoever arising out of or in connection with [SGI’s] work.”  This indemnity extended to any claims asserted by any subsequent owner alleging improper or defective workmanship.

After construction concluded, eighteen homeowners sued Amberwood, alleging numerous construction defects. Amberwood then sought indemnification from its subcontractors, including SGI. Ten of the eighteen homeowners arbitrated their claims to award and the remaining eight settled with Amberwood.  Amberwood then settled with all of its subcontractors except SGI.

D.W. Wilburn, Inc. v. K. Norman Berry Assocs., No. 2015-CA-001254-MR, 2016 Ky. App. Lexis 206 (Ky. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2016)

This case arose out of a construction project in which the Oldham County Board of Education (the “Board”) was the owner, K. Norman Berry Associates (“KNBA”) was the architect and D.W. Wilburn (“Wilburn”) was the general contractor. The Board’s contract with Wilburn provided that: (i) change orders must be signed by the architect, contractor, and owner; (ii) claims for additional time, money or delay damages must be submitted within twenty-one days of the event giving rise to the claim; (iii) change orders resolved all claims for time and money relating to the scope of the change order, and (iv) the contractor’s acceptance of final payment waived its claims, except those identified in writing as unsettled at the time of final application for payment.  Pursuant to the contract, the parties executed twenty-one change orders and Wilburn submitted a final payment application and closeout form.

Later, Wilburn was sued by one of its subcontractors for delay to the project. Wilburn then sued KNBA in a third party complaint asserting that KNBA was liable for the delay as a result of its defective plans and specifications.  The trial court granted KNBA summary judgment, dismissing Wilburn’s claim for lack of contractual privity.  Wilburn appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed.