Photo of John Conrad

John Conrad has been involved with all phases of construction litigation and has over 10 years of experience in engineering design and project management and consulting.

Aquatherm, LLC v. CentiMark Corp, 2019 BL 13240 (D. Utah Apr. 12, 2019)

Stag II Lindon LLC and Stag Industrial Inc. (collectively “Stag”) owned a building in Lindon, Utah.  Stag contracted with CentiMark Corp. (“CentiMark”) to perform work on the building’s roof.  CentiMark’s work required it to manipulate, move, and reinstall existing heating cables on the roof.  Shortly after completion of the work, in March of 2014, a fire occurred on the roof which was traced to the location of heat tape, which CentiMark had removed and replaced.

Continue Reading District Court in Utah Grants Summary Judgment for Contractor Against Insurance Subrogation Claim Based on Contractual Waiver Provision and Statute of Limitations

Skyrise Construction Group, LLC v. Annex Construction, LLC, 2019 BL 55071 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 20, 2019)

Subcontractor Skyrise Construction, Inc. (“Skyrise”) sued general contractor Annex Construction, Inc. (“Annex”) for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of Wisconsin and Illinois trade practices statutes.  Skyrise primarily based its claims on an assertion that the parties entered into a subcontract, which Annex breached when it removed Skyrise from the project and completed the work with an alternative subcontractor.  Both Skyrise and Annex filed motions for summary judgment.  The District Court denied Skyrise’s motion and granted Annex’s motion.

Continue Reading District Court in Wisconsin Finds That Counteroffer and Repeated Negotiations Concerning a Construction Contract Do Not Create Contractual Relationship

K-Con, Inc. v. Sec’y of the Army, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31196 (Fed. Cir., November 5, 2018)

In September 2013 K-Con, Inc. (“K-Con”) entered into two contracts with the government to supply and construct pre-engineered metal buildings for a laundry facility and a communications equipment shelter.  The government issued both contracts using Standard Form 1449, entitled Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items.  The contracts’ terms did not contain any requirement to provide a performance or payment  bond.  Nor did they include FAR 52.228-15, which requires performance and payment bonds on construction contracts.

In October 2013 the government directed K-Con to supply performance and payment bonds before a notice to proceed could be issued.  K-Con initially refused but ultimately provided the bonds two years later.  The contracts were then adjusted to add the cost of the bonds.

K-Con submitted a claim under each contract for increases in costs for the two year delay, for a total value of $116,336.56.  The Contracting Officer denied the claim on the basis that the agreements were construction contracts, for which performance and payment bonds were mandatory pursuant to FAR 52.228-15, and that that provision was incorporated into the contracts pursuant to the Christian doctrine under which a court may insert a clause into a government contract by operation of law if that clause is required under applicable federal regulations.  G.L. Christian & Associates v. Unites States, 312 F.2d 418 (Ct. Cl. 1963).  K-Con appealed to the Armed Services Board, which affirmed the denial of the claims.  K-Con then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit, Citing the Christian Doctrine, Holds That Performance and Payment Bonds Are Required for All Construction Contracts, Even When the Bonding Requirement Is Not Expressly Stated in the Contract

AWI Sec. & Investigations, Inc. v. Whitestone Constr. Corp., 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5867 (August 23, 2018)

A subcontractor, AWI Security and Investigations, Inc. (“AWI”), sued a general contractor, Whitestone Construction Corp. (“Whitestone”), for unpaid contract payments for providing security services on four separate construction projects.  A separate prevailing wage action (“Wage Action”) was also filed by AWI employees who worked on the projects, against both AWI and Whitestone.  Whitestone notified AWI that it was invoking the subcontract indemnity provision to withhold funds from AWI pending the outcome of the Wage Action.

Whitestone moved to dismiss AWI’s suit for payment based on a contractual limitations period requiring the suit to be brought within 6 months of: the cause of action accruing; the termination or conclusion of the contract; or the last day AWI performed work at the site, which Whitestone alleged had all occurred.  The court granted Whitestone’s motion to dismiss, finding that AWI had completed its work more than six months prior to filing its lawsuit and that AWI’s suit was barred by the contractual limitations period.  AWI appealed.
Continue Reading New York Appellate Division Holds That Contractor’s Assertion That No Payments Were Due to Subcontractor Until a Separate Prevailing Wage Action Was Resolved Precludes Application of Contractual Limitations Period

Rai Indus. Fabricators, LLC v. Fed. Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74612 (N.D. Cal., May 2, 2018)

Sauer Incorporated (“Sauer”) contracted with the U.S. Army to design and construct the Operational Readiness Training Complex at Fort Hunter, California.  Sauer subcontracted with Agate Steel, Inc. (“Agate”) for the erection of steel for the project.  Agate’s subcontract with Sauer contained a no-damage-for-delay clause, which generally provided that extensions of time were Agate’s sole remedy for delay.
According to Agate, the project suffered from substantial delays because of the acts and omissions of Sauer.  In particular, Agate alleged that Sauer failed to properly coordinate the work of its subcontractors, failed to follow the project’s schedules, failed to follow the subcontract’s change order procedures, and made unanticipated changes to the project’s scope and work flow sequence. Agate argued that these delays constituted a cardinal change and/or abandonment of the subcontract, which rendered the no-damage-for-delay clause unenforceable.  Agate sued Sauer for damages from the delays and disruptions to its work.


Continue Reading Federal Court in California Holds That Subcontractor May Proceed With Claim for Delay Damages, Despite No-Damage-For-Delay Clause, Where Changes to the Work Amount to an Implied Abandonment of the Subcontract

Meridian Eng’g Co. v. United States, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 7024 (Fed. Cir., Mar. 20, 2018)

Meridian Engineering Company (“Meridian”) was hired by the United States (“Government”) to construct flood control structures on the Chula Vista Project.  Meridian encountered what it considered to be differing site conditions on the project.  The Government issued two contract modifications in response to Meridian’s claims.  Later, structural failures occurred and the Government ultimately terminated Meridian.  Meridian filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims.

The court held that Meridian failed to establish a compensable differing site condition because the bid documents sufficiently notified contractors of potential water conditions at the site that could result in the conditions claimed.  Also, the court held that Meridian was charged with knowledge of the conditions that a pre-bid site visit would have revealed, which included the conditions in question.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court on that issue.
Continue Reading Evidence That Government Internally Considered Additional Modifications After the Parties Had Signed Earlier Modifications May Negate a Finding That the Earlier Modifications Were an Accord and Satisfaction of All Claims

Parkcrest Builders, LLC v. Hous. Auth. of New Orleans, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125012 (E.D. La. August 8, 2017)

The Housing Authority of New Orleans (“the Authority”) contracted with Parkcrest Builders, LLC (“Parkcrest”) to construct a public housing project.  The Project was delayed and the Authority terminated Parkcrest prior to completion, and entered into a Takeover Agreement with Parkcrest’s Surety.  The Surety retained Parkcrest to complete the work, and later notified the Authority that it had achieved substantial completion.  The Authority asserted deficient and incomplete items remained on the project, which the Surety refused to complete.  The Authority then solicited bids for the remaining work, and awarded the work to a replacement contractor.

Parkcrest sued the Authority for breach of contract and also asserted that any delays on the Project were excusable and, therefore, not subject to liquidated damages.  The Authority counterclaimed against Parkcrest for added costs to complete the project.  The Surety intervened, also seeking a ruling that all delays were excusable.  The Authority then counterclaimed against the Surety for completion costs.


Continue Reading Federal Court Holds That Under Louisiana Law, Actual Notice of Cause of Delay Satisfies Contractual Notice Requirement Despite Failure to Strictly Comply With the Notice Provision

Girolametti v. Michael Horton Assoc., 2017 Conn. App. Lexis 228 (June 6, 2017)

A General Contractor brought claims for unpaid added work, via mandatory arbitration, against a building owner who asserted defective work claims in response.  The Owner abandoned the arbitration mid-process after a partial presentation of its claims.  The arbitrator ruled in favor of the General Contractor, awarding $508,597 in damages, which was affirmed by the Superior Court and Appellate Court.  The Owner then attempted to bring the same defective work claims in state court against the General Contractor, its subcontractors, and the Owner’s testing company on the project.  The defendants all filed motions for summary judgment asserting the defenses of collateral estoppel and res judicata.
The trial court granted the General Contractor’s motion but denied the subcontractors’ and testing company’s motions on the basis that both collateral estoppel and res judicata required privity between those entities and the General Contractor.

The Court of Appeals discussed each motion in detail.  As to the Owner’s claims against the General Contractor, the Court found that the Owner’s complaint involved the same claims of design and installation defects as had been raised or could have been raised in the arbitration.  The Owner had a full and fair opportunity to present his claims against the General Contractor in arbitration.  Thus, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment was affirmed on the basis of res judicata.


Continue Reading Connecticut Appellate Court Holds That Owner’s Loss in Arbitration to General Contractor on Claims of Defective Work Operates as Res Judicata to Bar Owner’s Claim Against Subcontractors Who Were Not Parties to the Arbitration

KICC –Alcan Gen. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37560 (March 16, 2017)

A Contractor/Construction Manager, KICC-Alcan General (“KICC”), entered into a subcontract with an MEP subcontractor, Superior Group (“Superior”), concerning the construction of two buildings at an airforce base in Alaska. Superior sued KICC for approximately $2 million in costs it incurred in excess of the contract value, allegedly caused by KICC’s failure to properly manage the project.  KICC tendered Superior’s claims to its Errors and Omissions insurance carrier, Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company (“C&F”).  C&F denied both defense and indemnity of Superior’s claims.  KICC settled its claims with Superior prior to trial.  KICC then sued C&F for its breach of the duty to defend and indemnify against Superior’s claims, as well as a breach of its duty of good faith.

The terms of KICC’s E&O policy provided coverage for “damages… because of… an act error or omission in the rendering or failure to render professional services by any insured.”  The contract defined “professional services” as “those functions performed for others by you or by others on your behalf that are related to your practice as a consultant, engineer, architect, surveyor, laboratory or construction manager.”

Superior alleged that KICC: mismanaged a soil contamination issue at the beginning of the project; failed to provide timely responses to requests for information and contract modifications; and directed other subcontractors to work in the same areas at the same time as Superior, resulting in delays and added costs to Superior on the project. Superior submitted a request for equitable adjustment (“REA”) for these costs and delays, but KICC denied the REA.  In its lawsuit, Superior asserted claims for breach of contract and quantum meruit.


Continue Reading Federal Court in Alaska Holds Insurer Liable Under E&O Policy to Indemnify and Defend Construction Manager for Claims by Subcontractor That Construction Manager Failed to Properly Perform Construction Management Services

Bell Prods. v. Hosp. Bldg. & Equip. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9183 (ND of Cal. Jan. 23, 2017)

A Contractor, Hospital Building and Equipment Company (“HBE”) entered into a subcontract with a mechanical subcontractor, Bell Products, Inc. (“Bell”), on a design-build project for a California hospital.  Bell sued HBE, asserting that HBE’s plans and specifications were deficient and failed to meet requirements of the applicable regulatory agencies, resulting in 15 months of delay to the project.  Bell initially sued HBE in State Court.  However, the case was removed to federal court, and the federal court stayed the proceedings pending conclusion of arbitration.

The subcontract provided that:  all claims between HBE and Bell shall be decided by arbitration; the arbitration shall be per the Construction Industry Rules of the American Arbitration Association; the arbitration provisions shall be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) and “unless [HBE] requests the locale to be the place of the Project, the arbitration locale shall be St. Louis, Missouri.  Bell sought relief from the venue provision, based upon a California Statute, C.C.P. § 410.42(a)(1), which provides:

(a) The following provisions of a contract between the contractor and a subcontractor with principal offices in this state, for the construction of a public or private work of improvement in this state, shall be void and unenforceable:
(1) A provision which purports to require any dispute between the parties to be litigated, arbitrated, or otherwise determined outside this state.
Continue Reading Federal Court in California Rules That the Federal Arbitration Act Preempts California Statute That Requires Arbitrations Relating to California Construction Projects Take Place in California