Photo of Joseph T. Imperiale

Joseph T. Imperiale

Subscribe to Joseph T. Imperiale's Posts

Joe’s practice has been dedicated exclusively to the construction and manufacturing industries for more than 15 years. He represents owners, EPC contractors, construction managers, general contractors and subcontractors in disputes on a wide array of construction projects, including power plants, mass transit systems, highways, high voltage electric transmission lines, pipelines and heavy industrial and commercial construction projects.

Follow:Read more about Joseph T. ImperialeJoseph's Linkedin Profile

King County v. Vinci Construction Grands Projects/Parsons RCI/Frontier-Kemper, JV, 2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 2735 (Nov. 9, 2015)

The Court of Appeals of Washington recently decided King County v. Vinci Construction Grands Projects/Parsons RCI/Frontier-Kemper, JV, a dispute between a joint venture contractor (the Contractor) and King County, Washington (the County). The dispute stemmed from problems that arose and significant delays that occurred during a major expansion of the County’s wastewater treatment system, known as the Brightwater project. The case illustrates the potential pitfalls of a contractor’s claim of differing site conditions.Continue Reading Washington State Court Affirms $155M Jury Award Against Contractor and Surety Stemming from Claim of Default Due to Delayed Performance, Sustaining Denial of Contractor’s Differing Site Condition Defense

When responding to document requests or a subpoena duces tecum, litigants in New York traditionally have been faced with the onerous privilege log requirements set forth in Section 3122 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules.  Section 3122 requires a litigant who withholds any responsive documents to provide to the requesting party a privilege log containing a separate entry for each withheld document.  Each entry must disclose the legal grounds on which the document is withheld, in addition to certain identifying information including the type of document, the general subject matter of the document, and the date of the document.  N.Y. CPLR § 3122(b).  In complex construction disputes, there is often a large volume of privileged documents, and thus preparing a privilege log that meets the requirements of Section 3122 can be time consuming and expensive.
Continue Reading New York Commercial Division Enacts New Rule to Promote More Efficient Privilege Logging

TRG Construction, Inc. v. District of Columbia Water & Sewer Authority
2013 D.C. App. LEXIS 257 (May 9, 2013)

Appellant, TRG Construction, Inc. (“TRG”), was hired by the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (“D.C. Water”) to renovate bathrooms at D.C. Water’s central operations facility. When TRG initially contracted with D.C. Water it agreed to complete the bathroom renovations by June 13, 2004. The project suffered delays, however, and the deadline for completion was extended to July 31, 2005. Before that deadline, TRG requested another extension. D.C. Water declined to grant the request. Shortly thereafter, D.C. Water sent TRG a cure notice detailing several alleged deficiencies in TRG’s work. TRG declined to fix the problems asserting that its work was not defective. On September 2, 2005, D.C. Water terminated TRG’s contract for convenience.Continue Reading DC Court Holds that Authority’s Consideration Of Contractor’s Claim on Merits Raises Issue of Fact as to Waiver of Late Notice Defense

Sloan & Co. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.
633 F. 3d 175 (3d Cir. 2011)

IOC developed a waterfront condominium project in Philadelphia. Shoemaker was the prime contractor for the Project. Shoemaker retained multiple contractors, including Sloan, who was to perform drywall and carpentry work. Liberty Mutual was Shoemaker’s payment bond surety. At completion, IOC refused to pay Shoemaker nearly $6.5 million. Of that amount, $5 million was due to subcontractors. IOC claimed, among other things, that some of the subcontractors’ work was untimely and deficient. Because of this, Shoemaker refused to pay Sloan of the remaining balance due under its subcontract, $1,074,260.Continue Reading Third Circuit, Reversing District Court, Holds Subcontract Payment Clause Shifted Risk of Nonpayment by Owner to Subcontractor