Photo of Bob Gallagher

Bob Gallagher

Subscribe to Bob Gallagher's Posts

Bob Gallagher has represented construction clients on projects up to $4.5 billion and in dispute proceedings across 31 states, the District of Columbia, Canada, South America, the Middle East, Europe, and Australia.

Follow:Read more about Bob GallagherRobert's Linkedin Profile

DVBE Trucking and Construction Co., Inc. v. McCarthy Building Companies, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90052 (N.D. Cal. July 10, 2015)

This payment dispute case arises out of a Veterans Affairs (“VA”) construction project located in Palo Alto, California.  McCarthy Building Companies, Inc. (“McCarthy”) was the prime contractor, Federal Insurance Company and Travelers Casualty and Surety provided the performance and payment bonds on behalf of McCarthy mandated by the Miller Act, and DVBE Trucking and Construction Company, Inc. (“DVBE”) was McCarthy’s subcontractor.  Section 11.1 of DVBE’s subcontract required that, for any dispute involving the VA, it would follow the dispute resolution procedures agreed to by McCarthy in its contract with the VA, and agreed to be bound by the result of any such dispute resolution procedures to the same degree as McCarthy.

Marenalley Constr., LLC v. Zurich American Ins. Co. and Nason Constr. Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30968 (E.D. Pa. March 13, 2015)

This payment dispute case arises out of a Veterans Affairs (“VA”) construction project located in Philadelphia. Nason was the general contractor, Zurich was Nason’s surety, and Marenalley was Nason’s subcontractor. Marenalley’s subcontract required it to pursue any claim related to the project through the administrative disputes resolution process provided by Nason’s prime contract with the VA before bringing suit against the project’s bond.  The prime contract’s administrative dispute resolution process clause incorporated the terms of the Contract Disputes Act (the “CDA”).

Frontier Contr. Inc. v. Allen Eng’g Contr., Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136474 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 2014)

Frontier Contracting Inc. (Frontier) entered into a teaming agreement with Allen Engineering Contractor, Inc. (Allen) to complete two U.S. Federal Highway projects in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks.  During the course of the projects, disputes arose and Allen refused to issue full payments to Frontier.  Frontier then filed a complaint against Allen alleging, in part, a Miller Act claim.

Technica LLC v. Carolina Casualty Ins. Co., 749 F.3d 1149,2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8023 (9th Cir., April, 29, 2014)

This payment dispute arose out of the ICE El Centro SPC – Perimeter Fence Replacement/Internal Devising Fence Replacement federal project in California.  Candelaria was the prime contractor.  Candelaria entered into subcontract with Otay, who contracted with Technica to act as a sub-subcontractor.  After submitting invoices for labor, material and services, Technica received only partial payment for its work.

Technica filed a Miller Act claim authorized by federal statute  to recover the outstanding amount owed on its sub-subcontract against Candelaria’s payment bond.  Candelaria and its surety filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the California Business and Professions Code precludes any contractor from maintaining a collection action, unless the contractor was licensed during the performance of the contract.  Since Technica lacked a California contactor license, the district court held that Technica could not pursue a Miller Act claim.

Metcalf Constr. Co. v. United States
742 F.3d 984 (Fed. Cir. 2014)

This action arose out of the design and construction of military housing units at a U.S. Navy facility in Hawaii.  Pre-bid documents for the project supplied by the government provided test information regarding soil conditions on the site.  The government also included a disclaimer that this information was “for preliminary information only” and the resulting contract required that the contractor conduct its own independent soil investigation.

Metcalf Construction Company (the “Contractor”) was awarded the contract.  When the Contractor conducted its independent soil investigation it discovered that the soil was not as represented.  The Contractor notified the government and discussions ensued.  In those discussions, the Contractor recommended a different design and construction approach to account for the newly uncovered conditions, while the government generally insisted on following construction requirements set out in the original contract.  After a year’s delay, the Contractor decided that the cost of waiting for the government to approve the design changes had become too high, and it began to implement those changes without a contract modification.  As a result, the Contractor spent approximately $26 million over the original contract amount to remedy the soil conditions and finish the project.

Lydon-Millwright, Inc. v. Ernest Bock & Sons, Inc.
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65019 (E.D. Pa. May 7, 2013)

This case arises out of a construction project at the Philadelphia International Airport to install a baggage handling system. Bock was the general contractor. Bock contracted Lydon to install the mechanical portion of the baggage handling system. The parties’ purchase order required Lydon to submit a release of liens and claims with each monthly payment application. Over the course of the project, Lydon submitted 54 payment applications, all of which contained the required release of liens and claims.

Lasalle Group, Inc. v. JST Properties, LLC
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83548 (S.D. Mich. July 29, 2011)

LaSalle, as general contractor, obtained a contract for construction of a school building in Gulfport, Mississippi. LaSalle subcontracted the concrete work on the project to Gulf Coast. American Contractors Indemnity Company (“ACIC”) provided performance and payment bonds to support LaSalle’s obligations under the subcontract.