Photo of Stephen Kiefer

Stephen Kiefer

Subscribe to Stephen Kiefer's Posts

Tri-State Elec., Inc. ex rel. Apex Enters. v. Western Sur. Co., 1:14-CV-00245, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4974 (D. Idaho Jan. 11, 2017)

The United States Department of Veterans Affairs (the “VA”) contracted with Sygnos, Inc. (“Sygnos”) for improvements to the electrical system at a VA hospital in Boise, Idaho. Sygnos subcontracted a portion of the work to Apex Enterprises, Inc. (“AEI”), who in turn subcontracted a portion of its work to Tri-State Electric, Inc. (“Tri-State”).  Delays plagued the project from the outset, and the work – originally scheduled for completion in 240 days – ultimately took more than 950 days to perform.  Disputes concerning responsibility for and the amount of delay damages ensued.

Sygnos submitted a request for equitable adjustment to the VA as a result of the delays. Receiving no timely response from the VA, Sygnos converted the request for equitable adjustment to a claim for delay damages under the Contract Disputes Act, which the VA and Sygnos settled for $645,000.  AEI and Tri-State subsequently sued Sygnos for delay damages they incurred on the project.  Sygnos did not dispute that AEI and Tri-State had suffered delays but it disputed some categories of damages claimed and cited the no-damage-for-delay clause in Tri-State’s contract as barring its claims.

Tribal Casino Gaming Enterprise v. W.G. Yates & Sons Constr. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86100 (W.D. NC July 1, 2016)

Tribal Casino Gaming Enterprise (the “Casino”) contracted with joint general contractors, W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Company and Rentenback Constructors Inc. (the “Contractor”) for an expansion of the Casino’s facility in Cherokee, North Carolina.  Following completion, two parking decks constructed during the project partially collapsed.  The Casino contended that the parking deck failures resulted from the Contractor’s faulty work.

The Casino submitted a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”), asserting contractual, tort, and statutory claims against the Contractor.  The Contractor filed a motion with the Western District of North Carolina seeking to stay the AAA arbitration.  Citing the doctrine of contractual impossibility and due process concerns, the Contractor argued that the arbitration clause in the parties’ contract was unenforceable because it required that the arbitral panel issue an award within 30 days, which the Contractor contended was unreasonable under the circumstances of the complex dispute.

Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba v. United States, 125 Fed. Cl. 469 (Fed. Cl. Mar 16, 2016)

The United States Naval Facilities Engineering Command (the “Navy”) contracted with the joint venture of Nova Group and Tutor-Saliva (the “JV”) for construction of a pier at the Puget Sound Navy Shipyard in Bremerton, Washington.  The contract assigned selection of pier stability assessment methods to the JV’s discretion.  Exercising that discretion, the JV selected a SAP 2000 model for performance design loads.  Five months after the Navy had approved the JV’s design submittals, the Navy’s construction manager voiced concerns about the design and questioned the JV’s reliance upon the SAP 2000 model.

Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc. v. Rummel Klepper & Kahl, LLP, 226 Md. App. 420, 130 A.3d 1024, 2016 Md. App. LEXIS 3 ( Md. Ct. Spec. App. Jan. 28, 2016)

The City of Baltimore retained a design professional, Rummel Klepper & Kahl (“RK&K”), to produce a design for construction of a wastewater treatment plant.  The City then invited bids for construction of the plant, and contractor Balfour Beatty Infrastructure (“Balfour Beatty”) was the successful bidder.  RK&K and Balfour Beatty each had a separate contract with the City, but did not have a contract with one another.  After alleged defects in RK&K’s design caused Balfour Beatty to incur delays and increases to the cost of its work, it sued RK&K, but not the City.

Wax NJ-2, LLC v. JFB Constr. & Dev., 13-cv-4537, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74508 (S.D.N.Y. June 9, 2015)

Wax NJ-2, LLC (“Wax”) hired the architectural firm GF55 Partners (“GF55”) to design and then inspect construction of a store that Wax planned to open in New York City.  The building which Wax was preparing to lease for the store had been leased as two separate commercial spaces.  Wax had the option of moving a partition wall between the two spaces and thus increasing or decreasing the amount of square footage leased for its store.  In designing the layout of Wax’s store, GF55 reported to Wax that the footprint called for 1235 square feet.  Wax then entered into a lease agreement with the owner for 1235 square feet of the building at $125 per square foot.  Construction commenced, and GF55’s remaining obligations under its contract with Wax included inspection of the contractor’s work to ensure compliance with the building code.

NYU Hosps. Ctr. v. HRH Constr. LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31967 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2015)

NYU Hospitals Center (“NYU”) hired HRH Construction LLC (“HRH”) to renovate NYU’s radiology center. HRH entered into subcontracts with various trades to complete the work. The renovation project was to proceed in several phases, and the contract between NYU and HRH called for HRH to submit monthly payment requisitions for costs and expenses incurred during the preceding month.

Total Eng’g, Inc. v. United States, 2015 U.S. Claims LEXIS 30 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 26, 2015) 

The United States Army Corps of Engineers (the “Government”) awarded a contract to Total Engineering, Inc. (“Total”) for preliminary site construction work for the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense Replacement Facility.  When failures occurred in a steam line system that Total had installed, the contracting officer issued a cure notice and ultimately terminated Total for default.
Total’s contract required it to construct a steam line system, consisting of steam and condensate lines anchored to parallel concrete piers inside a concrete trench.  During a hydrostatic pressure test, the Government noted cracks in the piers, pipe detachment from several concrete piers, and damage to an anchor support.  The parties disputed the cause of the failures.  Total contended that the Government’s faulty design caused the failures, and the Government alleged that deficiencies in Total’s work were to blame.

Indalex, Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 99 A.3d 926 (Pa. 2014)

In a per curiam decision without a published opinion, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh’s (“National”) appeal from a Superior Court decision holding that National had a duty to defend its insured, Indalex, Inc. (“Indalex”) in multiple state court lawsuits.  The Superior Court opinion, reported at 83 A.3d 418, highlighted the limits of prior case law and confirmed an insurer’s duty to defend under commonly-used commercial general liability policy language when the underlying claimant alleges personal injury or damage to other property resulting from the insured’s negligence.

Spectro Alloys Corp. v. Fire Brick Eng’rs Co., Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140817 (D. Minn. Oct. 3, 2014)

Spectro Alloys Corporation (“Spectro”) operates a smelter, and it hired Fire Brick Engineers (“FBE”) to install refractory lining to two furnaces in Spectro’s plant.  When that refractory lining failed prematurely, Spectro sued FBE for breach of express and implied warranties and for breach of contract.  Spectro sought recovery of repair costs and profits lost while its plant was shut down for repairs.

Bedwell Co. v. Camden County Improvement Auth., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95510 (D.N.J. July 14, 2014)

The University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey contracted HDR Architects and Engineers, P.C. (“HDR”) to design a medical school building. After the project went to bid, the Bedwell Company (“Bedwell”) contracted with the owner’s development and contracting agent for the performance of foundation, structural steel, and other construction work.

Bedwell and HDR did not have a contract with each other. According to the allegations in Bedwell’s complaint, however, HDR was aware that the design documents that it prepared under its contract with the owner would be used by contractors like Bedwell in their estimation of costs and time for completion of the work. In its complaint, Bedwell alleged that defects in HDR’s design documents—which led to 212 Requests for Information and 469 Change Order Requests—caused unexpected costs and numerous delays.