Construction Dispute

Subscribe to Construction Dispute via RSS

Charles T. Driscoll Masonry Reconstruction Co., Inc. v. County of Ulster
2007 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6068 (N.Y. App. Div., May 17, 2007)
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York held that a construction contract must be enforced according to its terms and, therefore, oral modifications of an agreement which specifically calls for modifications to be in writing will be unenforceable. Although recognizing that written modification clauses may be waived based upon the conduct of the parties, the court found that the conduct of the parties in this case did not support a waiver.

Hutton Contacting Company, Inc. v. City of Coffeyville
2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 9914, (10th Cir., April 30, 2007)
Contractor contracted to construct power and fiber-optic lines for the City. Upon completion of the project, the City refused to pay the final balance of the contract price, claiming that it was entitled to the funds as liquidated damages because the project was not completed on time. The Contractor sued to obtain the unpaid contract balance. The trial court ordered the City to pay the Contractor the retainage due minus $85,000 in liquidated damages. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, applying Kansas law, considered: 1) whether the contract’s force-majeure clause excused the Contractor for delays caused by late deliveries from its pole supplier; 2) whether the contract’s liquidated-damages provision was enforceable; and 3) whether the contract’s liquidated damages provision allowed the District Court to apportion delays between the Contractor and the City.

Turner Constr. Co. v. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co.
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32640 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2007)
Plaintiff Turner Construction Company entered into a construction management agreement with Central Synagogue in Manhattan for renovation work which included the installation of central air conditioning. The HVAC contractor on the project was Trident Mechanical Systems, Inc. During the project, a fire broke out, started by an employee of the roofing contractor who had been using a propane torch. The fire, which ordinarily would have caused minimal damage, was accelerated by exhaust fans that had been installed in the roof, and caused several millions of dollars damage to the landmark Synagogue. The Synagogue’s insurer, Wausau, sued Turner and some of the project’s contractors, to recover amounts it paid the Synagogue. The trial was bifurcated, trying liability first, then damages. Liability was determined as: Turner 50%, the roofing contractor 30%, the general contractor 15%, and Trident 0%. A settlement was reached before the damages portion of the trial began.

Universal Underwriters Insurance Co. v. A. Richard Kacin, Inc.
916 A.2d 686 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007)
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that the American Institute of Architects’ (“AIA”) form waiver of subrogation clause barred a subrogation claim even where the loss was created by the contractor’s own negligence. Relying on Penn Avenue Place Assoc., L.P. v. Century Steel Erectors, Inc., 798 A.2d 256 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002), the court held that a warranty provision did not invalidate the waiver of subrogation and opined that the warranty provision provided a remedy only to the extent that losses were not covered by insurance. The court further held that an insurer does not need to be party to the contract containing the waiver of subrogation clause nor does the insurer need to consent to or have notice of the waiver of subrogation clause in order for it to be enforceable.

Dynalectric Co. v. Whittenberg Constr. Co.
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27025 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 10, 2007)
Defendant project-owner Luther F. Carson Four Rivers Center, Inc. contracted with Whittenberg Construction Company to serve as general contractor in the construction of a fine arts facility and with defendant Ray Black & Son, Inc. to serve as construction manager. Whittenberg contracted the electrical contracting work to Plaintiff Dynalectric. Dynalectric brought suit against Four Rivers and Black, alleging that they had caused its work to take longer and cost more than anticipated and as a result Dynalectric had not been fully compensated for its work on the project.

DGS v. Pittsburgh Building Co.
2007 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 160 (Pa. Commw. Ct. April 5, 2007)
The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court held that a contractor was entitled to recover penalty interest and attorney fees under the Pennsylvania Prompt Payment Act from the Department of General Services (“DGS”) when DGS had engaged in arbitrary and vexatious conduct by withholding payment for costs associated with a five-month suspension and unsuitable soil conditions when DGS was aware of, yet failed to disclose, problematic soil conditions.

Titan Stone, Tile & Masonry v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc.
Civ. No. 05-3362, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19489 (D.N.J. March 19, 2007)
The Court decided several motions for summary judgment filed by a prime contractor to claims of a subcontractor. Among the motions decided, the Court addressed the duty of good faith and fair dealing attendant to an obligation to evaluate payment applications, the breadth of a “pay-if-paid” clause, whether a monthly release executed with a payment application barred claims for extra work performed after the pay period in the attendant payment application and whether the plaintiff adequately plead its claim for violation of the New Jersey Trust Fund Act.

Harborview Office Ctr., LLC v. Camosy Inc.
2006 Wisc. App. LEXIS 149 (Wis. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2006)
Project owner Harborview entered into a contract for the construction of a three-story office building. After discovering significant water infiltration problems, Harborview filed suit against the parties who had provided services in its construction: the general contractor, the architectural firm, the installer of aluminum windows, and the installer of the Exterior Insulation and Finishing System (EIFS). Harborview alleged negligence and breach of contract against each and claimed that in order to resolve the water infiltration problem it would be necessary to remove and replace all of the building’s windows. Harborview hired an expert, who was an architect and engineer, to identify the causes of the problem, evaluate a correction process, and ultimately oversee the remediation process.

MidAmerica Construction Management, Inc. v. MasTec North America, Inc., et al.
2006 U.S. App. Lexis 3022 (10th Cir. 2006)
In MidAmerica Construction Management, Inc. v. MasTec North America, Inc., et al., 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 3022 (10th Cir. 2006), the Court held that a subcontract agreement contained a “pay-if-paid” clause, and that the clause in question was enforceable under both Texas and New Mexico law. As a result, general contractors did not need to pay the subcontractor for the work that the subcontractor performed under the contract, because the general contractors had not been paid by the project owner for that work.

Matrix Construction, LLC v. Barton Malow and Schoolcraft College
2006 Mich. App. LEXIS 429, No. 265156 (February 21, 2006)
In Matrix Construction, LLC v. Barton Malow and Schoolcraft College, 2006 Mich. App. LEXIS 429, No. 265156 (February 21, 2006), the Court held that a contractor could not maintain a suit against a construction manager for negligence where the alleged duty arose under the construction manager’s contract with the owner.
Contractor, Matrix Construction, LLC entered into a contract with Owner, Schoolcraft College to furnish and install numerous items for a construction project. Owner also contracted with Construction Manager, Barton Malow to manage and supervise Contractor’s work on the project. Contractor filed suit against Construction Manager alleging that Construction Manager negligently managed the project by failing to properly “supervise, coordinate, plan and schedule the work performed on the project.”