Construction Dispute

Subscribe to Construction Dispute via RSS

La Liberte, LLC v. Keating Building Corp. v. Roman Mosaic and Tile Co.
Civ. A. No. 07-1397, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90878 (E.D. Pa., Dec. 11, 2007)
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed the third-party complaint of the defendant holding that the statute of limitations had expired on the defendant’s performance bond claims against surety companies.
Plaintiff La Liberte LLC sued Defendant Keating Building Corporation for breach of contract, breach of implied warranty, and breach of express warranty in connection with the work Keating performed on a hotel owned by La Liberte. Under the contract between La Liberte and Keating, Keating was to make renovations and construct an addition to La Liberte’s hotel. Keating, in turn, entered into several subcontracts. Among them, Keating contracted with Voegele Mechanical Inc. and Shannon Plastering and Drywall Corporation. Both subcontracts contained warranty provisions which ran one year from acceptance by La Liberte. Voegele and Shannon obtained performance bonds for the benefit of Keating. The performance bonds contained the following identical provisions:

Excavation Technologies, Inc. v. Columbia Gas Co.
2007 PA Super 327; 2007 Pa. Super LEXIS 3845 ( Super. Ct., Nov. 7, 2007)
The Pennsylvania Superior Court held that a public utility asked under the Pennsylvania “One-Call” Act to mark the location of its underground gas lines in the vicinity of a work site could not be sued for economic losses suffered by an excavation contractor which struck gas lines which it had erroneously failed to mark or mismarked.

Imperial Excavating & Paving, LLC v. Rizzetto Construction Management, Inc.
2007 PA Super 318, 2007 Pa. Super LEXIS 3540 (Pa. Super. Ct.. Oct. 23, 2007)
General contractor Rizzetto entered into a contract to perform extensive work for the Southern Lehigh School District, including work on the two high school soccer fields. Rizzetto contracted with subcontractor Imperial to perform earthwork on the fields including the removal of topsoil, grading and compacting of the subsoil. After Imperial’s earthwork on the fields had been completed, Rizzetto had been paid by the school less retainage and Rizzetto had paid Imperial, Rizzetto hired a landscaper to perform additional work on the fields including correction of irregularities in soil structuring, tilling and seeding, and the addition of six inches of topsoil.

James Corp. v. North Allegheny School District
No. 1268 C.D., 2007 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 636 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Nov. 30, 2007)
The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court held that the “measured mile” method of proving damages for an acceleration claim was legally sufficient to establish the extent of the contractor’s damages. The Court also held the contractor’s failure to provide notice in accordance with the contract was not fatal to the claim, and that attorney fees and expenses under the Prompt Payment Act must be apportioned to those fees and expenses associated with recovering payment’s due under the contract.

Northeast Fence & Iron Works, Inc. v. Murphy Quigley Co.
933 A.2d 664, 2007 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3092 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sept. 18, 2007)
The Pennsylvania Superior Court held that a subcontractor could recover on a theory of unjust enrichment against a contractor where the subcontractor proved that it performed work for which it was not paid and that this work satisfied the contractor’s obligations to a third party. The Subcontractor was not required to prove payment to the Contractor by the Owner.

Central Ceilings, Inc. v. Nat’l Amusements, Inc.,
70 Mass. App. Ct. 172, 873 N.E.3d 754 (Sept. 18, 2007)
National Amusements, Inc., entered into a contract with Old Colony Construction Corporation for the construction of National’s cinema theater complex. Old Colony subsequently entered into a subcontract with the plaintiff, Central Ceilings, Inc., for a portion of the construction of the Project. Although delays made meeting the original completion date next to impossible, National stressed to Central its strong desire to have the theatre complex open for the Labor Day weekend. In response, Central made it clear to National that meeting such an aggressive completion date would require it to accelerate the work schedule. In addition, since Old Colony was experiencing cash flow problems and owed Central a substantial sum of money for work already completed, Central demanded assurances from National that it would be paid for its work before it would continue with the accelerated work on the Project. As a result, one of National’s agents orally agreed to pay Old Colony’s obligations to Central. Thereafter, Central completed its work and achieved substantial completion by August 25.

PSEG Power New York, Inc. v. Alberici Constructors, Inc.
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66767 (N.D. NY. September 7, 2007)
During the course of litigation arising out of a contract for the construction of a combined-cycle power plant between the principal contractor Alberici and PSEG, an e-discovery dispute arose around the production of email. In response to Alberici’s request for documents including email and any email attachments, PSEG produced over 211,000 pages and a disc containing email, but not the email attachments. Later it was discovered that during the process in which PSEG’s vendor downloaded the emails for production, the tie between the email and its corresponding attachments was broken, making it very difficult to determine which attachment belonged to which email. However, the raw data remained intact. Around the same time, and before the close of discovery, PSEG moved for summary judgment. The District Judge struck the motion sua sponte, stating that the motion was to be renewed after discovery had been completed and the parties had consulted with the magistrate judge.

ACE Constructors, Inc. v. U.S.
2007 U.S. App. Lexis 22309 (Fed. Cir. September 19, 2007)
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a contractor’s claim for additional compensation due to differing site conditions.
ACE Constructors, Inc. (“Contractor”) entered into a contract with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (“Government”) to build a structure designated as the Ammo Hot-Load Facility, at Biggs Army Airfield at Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas. The project included construction of a loading area for cargo planes, various roadways, buildings, a storage pad, a loading apron, and a taxiway for airplanes. The site contained hills and other terrain that needed to be excavated, leveled, and filled. The bid solicitation materials included architectural drawings and engineering specifications prepared for the government by the engineering firm of Crawford, Murphy & Tilly, Inc., which plans were incorporated into the contract.

Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. M.J. Clark, Inc.
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51826 (N.D. Ill. July 17, 2007)
After a flood caused by a leak in the sprinkler system during remodeling at a Bloomingdale’s store in Chicago damaged the first five floors of the store, plaintiffs, Bloomingdale’s and its owner Federated, sued defendant contractor, subcontractor, and building manager for breach of contract, negligence, and indemnification.
The agreement between the contractor and owner provided the contractor agreed to indemnify the owner. It further provided that each party waived all rights against the other for any loss or damage “for which property insurance is carried or required to be carried pursuant to [the parties’] Agreement.” Specifically excepted from the waiver were the contractor’s indemnification responsibilities. During the time of the flood, the owner was covered by an “all risk” insurance policy. Among other things, the policy excluded ordinary wear and tear and errors in design or faulty workmanship.

Donald C. Winter v. CATH-DR/BALTI JOINT VENTURE
2007 U.S. App. Lexis 19565 (Fed. Cir., August 17, 2007)
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated and remanded in part the United States Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”) decision that CATH-dr/Balti Joint Venture (“CATH-Balti”) was entitled to an equitable adjust for contract modifications, issued by the Resident Officer in Charge of Contracts (“ROICC”), that called for work not covered under its contract with the United States Navy (“Navy”). The primary basis for reversal was the unambiguous language of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”), e.g., 48 C.F.R. § 1.601(a) and 48 C.F.R. § 43.102, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (“DFARS”), 48 C.F.R. § 201.602-2, and FAR Clause 48 C.F.R. § 52.243-4 (Changes Clause), DFARS Clause 48 C.F.R. § 52. 201-7000 (Contracting Officer’s Representative), and Naval Facilities Engineering Command (“NAVFAC”), 5252.201-9300 (Contracting Officer Authority) and 5252.242-9300 (Government Representatives), which were incorporated into the contract and clearly indicated that the ROICC did not have the authority to change the scope of work or authorize compensable changes.