Michelle Beth Rosenberg

Subscribe to Michelle Beth Rosenberg's Posts

Fed. Eng’rs & Constructors Inc. v. Relyant Global LLC, No. 3:19-CV-73-KAC-JEM, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95617 (E.D. Tenn., May 27, 2022)

This case arises out of the renovation of a U.S. Air Force dormitory in Missouri. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers hired Relyant Global LLC to act as the prime contractor. Relyant subcontracted with Federal Engineers and Constructors, Inc. (FE&C). Relyant later terminated its subcontract with FE&C. FE&C filed suit against Relyant, and Relyant moved for judgment on the pleadings.Continue Reading Choose With Care: Tennessee Federal Court’s Prompt Payment Conclusions Turn on Choice of Law Clause

A.E. Rosen Elec. Co. v. Plank, LLC, No. 07862-7, 2019 BL 113951 (Sup. Ct. Mar. 01, 2019)

On March 1, 2019, the Supreme Court of New York, Albany County, granted a subcontractor’s motion for summary judgment on a payment dispute involving a “pay-when-paid” contract provision.

Defendant Plank, LLC (“Contractor”) entered into a construction contract with Dutch Village, LLC (“Owner”) to act as the general contractor for the construction of four apartment buildings (“Project”).  Thereafter, Contractor entered into a subcontract with Plaintiff A.E. Rosen Electrical, Inc. (“Subcontractor”) for electrical work on the Project.  After nine months of work on the Project, a payment dispute arose between the Owner and Contractor.  At that time, Contractor directed the Subcontractor to cease work on the Project.Continue Reading New York Supreme Court Granted Summary Judgment for Subcontractor Where Contractor Attempted to Utilize Contractual “Pay-When-Paid” Provision to Unreasonably Withhold Payment from Subcontractor

Univ. of Iowa Bd. of Regents v. Am. Arbitration Ass’n, No. 17-0949, 2019 BL 7069 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 09, 2019)

Modern Piping, Inc. (“Modern Piping”) and the University of Iowa, Board of Regents, and State of Iowa (“University”) entered into two construction contracts, both containing arbitration provisions.  Disputes arose related to each contract and Modern Piping filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (AAA).  The University filed an action against AAA, seeking to enjoin it from arbitrating the disputes.  AAA filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that arbitral immunity doctrine applied.  The district court granted AAA’s motion and the University appealed.

The doctrine of arbitral immunity provides that arbitrators are immune from liability for acts performed in their arbitral capacity and generally shields all functions which are integrally related to the arbitral process.  The doctrine applies to a claim against an arbitrator where the claim effectively seeks to challenge the decisional act of an arbitrator or arbitration panel.  The immunity extends to associations administering arbitration procedures.Continue Reading The Doctrine of Arbitral Immunity Applied to an Arbitral Organization Absent a Showing of Clear Lack of Jurisdiction

Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md. v. T

ravelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162265 (D. Nev., September 21, 2018)
Clark County School District (“CCSD”) hired Big Town Mechanical (“Big Town”) as general contractor to perform HVAC upgrades at five schools.  Big Town in turn hired F.A.S.T. Systems (“FAST”) to complete low-voltage work at the schools.  Big Town obtained performance bonds from Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America (“Travelers”) and FAST obtained performance bonds from Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland (“F&D”).

Following FAST’s default on its subcontracts, F&D opted to complete FAST’s work and hired a substitute subcontractor, Perini.  In May 2012, Perini notified Big Town that it had “substantially completed” all of FAST’s work.  After Big Town refused payment, F&D filed suit against Big Town and Travelers in early 2013.  In May of 2013, CCSD rejected Big Town’s final payment application, stating that the project was incomplete and claiming there were significant defects in the work.  CCSD then sued Travelers seeking specific performance and liquidated damages for delay.  Travelers eventually settled CCSD’s suit but through its counterclaim sought reimbursement from F&D for its settlement plus costs expended to complete the project.
Continue Reading Concurrent Delay: Surety—Standing in the Shoes of Subcontractor—Is Barred From Asserting Defense of Concurrent Delay Because Subcontractor Failed to Seek a Time Extension as Required by the Subcontracts

Fisk Elec. Co. v. DQSI, L.L.C., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 17914 (5th Cir., June 29, 2018)

 DQSI, L.L.C., (“DQSI”) a general contractor, was hired by the Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) for a pump station construction project.  Western Surety Company (“Western”) issued a Miller Act payment bond on DQSI’s behalf.  DQSI hired Fisk Electric Company (“Fisk”) as subcontractor to perform electrical work on the project.

The project was delayed 464 days due, in part, to adverse weather conditions.  Fisk asserted expenses due to the delay of over $400,000 against DQSI and submitted a Request for Equitable Adjustment (“REA”) to DQSI for the 464 days of delay.

Fisk sued DQSI and Western pursuant to the Miller Act.  The parties then entered into a settlement agreement wherein Fisk would release DQSI for payment of approximately $55,000 and for DQSI’s agreement that it would submit the REA to the Corps and pursue it. 
Continue Reading Claimant Is Not Required to Conduct an Investigation Into the Veracity of the Representation to Prove Justifiable Reliance When Asserting a Fraudulent Inducement Claim Under the Miller Act

Aquatic Renovations Sys. v. Vill. of Walbridge, 2018 Ohio App. Lexis 1581 (April 13, 2018)

This post was published on July 7, 2018 in The Pennsylvania Record.

On May 2, 2012, Aquatic Renovations Systems, Inc. (“Aquatic”) entered into a contract with the Village of Walbridge (“the Village”) for the installation of a new pool liner (“Contract 1”).  Prior thereto, the Village council adopted an ordinance which authorized the mayor to enter into Contract 1 (“Ordinance”).  On April 12, 2013, the mayor signed a new contract for the balance of the work (“Contract 2”).  A few days after Aquatic completed its work, the pool liner began to lift.  The Village then refused to pay Aquatic for the completed and approved work.

Aquatic sued the Village for non-payment, alleging the Village breached Contract 2.  Aquatic also alleged that the Village was liable under a theory of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment.  The trial court granted the Village’s motion for summary judgment, holding that Contract 2 was not valid because it did not comply with the Ohio Revised Statute which required the mayor, the clerk, and the Village administrator to authorize all Village Contracts.  Thus, because Contract 2 was unenforceable, Aquatic could not recover under a breach of contract, quantum meruit or unjust enrichment theory.Continue Reading Void Means Void – Municipal Contract That Did Not Conform to Statute Is Void and No Claim for Breach or Quasi-Contract or Unjust Enrichment Is Permitted

St. George Fire Prot. Dist. No. 2 v. J. Reed Constructors, Inc. 2018, La. App. LEXIS 262 (February 20, 2018)

J. Reed Constructors, Inc. (“J. Reed”) and St. George Fire Protection District No. 2 (“St. George”) entered into two construction contracts under which disputes were subject to binding arbitration. A dispute arose in which J. Reed contested St. George’s assessment of liquidated damages and claims for breach of warranty. The matter was submitted to arbitration and the arbitrator awarded St. George $58,865.00.
St. George petitioned the trial court to confirm the arbitration award, pointing out that the three month deadline for the parties to request that the award be vacated, modified, or corrected had lapsed.  J. Reed answered the petition by objecting to the confirmation of $41,660.00 for architect and attorney fees.  J. Reed acknowledged that it did not file a motion to modify within three months of the award, as required by the Louisiana Binding Arbitration Law (the “Act”), but argued that it was not prohibited from raising its objection as an affirmative defense in its answer to the petition.

The trial court rejected J. Reed’s argument and confirmed the award.  The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that J. Reed’s right to challenge the award had been waived and could not be revived by characterizing the challenge as an affirmative defense to the petition to confirm.Continue Reading Contractor Who Failed to Challenge Arbitration Award Within Statutory Three Month Period Cannot Resurrect the Challenge as an “Affirmative Defense” to a Later Action for Confirmation

Superior Steel, Inv. v. Ascent at Roebling’s Bridge, LLC, 2017 Ky. LEXIS 511 (December 14, 2017)

Corporex Development and Construction Management, LLC (“Corporex”), a design builder, contracted with Dugan & Meyers Construction Company (“D&M”), a construction manager and general contractor on the Ascent at Roebling’s Bridge (the “Project”), a 21-floor luxury condominium in Covington, Kentucky.
As a cost saving measure, D&M asked Superior Steel, Inc. (“Superior”) to fabricate the steel and to have Ben Hur Construction Company (“Ben Hur”) complete the erection and installation work.  Superior and D&M entered into a fixed price contract for $1,814,000.  In turn, Superior subcontracted with Ben Hur to erect the steel and metal decking for $444,000.  As structured, the payments would flow from Corporex to D&M to Superior.  Superior would then pay Ben Hur.Continue Reading Kentucky Supreme Court Holds “Pay-if-Paid” Provision in Subcontract Is Valid and Enforceable, Shifting Risk to Subcontractor

Abhe & Svboda, Inc. v. State of Michigan Department of Transportation, 2017 Mich. App. Lexis 1387 (August 29, 2017)

Contractor Abhe & Svboda, Inc. (“A&B”) entered into a contract with the Michigan Department of Transportation (“MDOT”) to clean and paint a portion of the Mackinac Bridge, with a contract completion date of October 30, 2009.  A&B missed the completion date by 644 days.  MDOT, therefore, imposed liquidated damages in the amount of $3,000 per day for each day by which completion was delayed.
In the trial court, A&B argued that MDOT’s assessment of liquidated damages was improper because a portion of the delay was caused by MDOT’s failure to approve a prerequisite to the work (scaffolding) and because site conditions were substantially worse than reasonably anticipated.Continue Reading Michigan Court of Appeals Holds That Contractor Who Failed to Timely Seek a Time Extension Is Barred From Contesting Liquidated Damages