Construction Dispute

Subscribe to Construction Dispute via RSS

Hancock Electronics Corp. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 81 F.3d 451 (4th Cir. 1996).
In the spring of 1994, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (“WMATA”) awarded Hancock Electronics Corporation (“Hancock”) a contract to provide replacement braking systems for approximately 300 rail cars. The contract required Hancock to design, manufacture and install the braking systems. The contract further required Hancock to demonstrate its contract performance to WMATA and provide certain technical data about the braking systems.
Because it apparently did not possess the ability to monitor the testing of the brake systems’ software, WMATA subcontracted the testing function to a third party. In addition, as part of the testing process, WMATA requested Hancock to provide certain technical documentation, including the brake systems’ software. WMATA sought Hancock’s permission to provide the technical data to the third party responsible for testing, who had agreed to enter into a lifetime nondisclosure agreement. Hancock refused.

Valley View Enterprises, Inc. v. United States,
35 Fed. Cl. 378 (1996).
On September 22,1992, the Department of the Army awarded plaintiff Valley View Enterprises, Inc. (“Valley View”) a contract to replace seventeen steam lines located at the United States Military Academy in West Point, New York in connection with…

Grange Mutual Casualty Co. v. Robert Locker Builder, Inc.; Panzica Constr. Co. v. Ohio Ins. Casualty
1996 Ky. App. LEXIS 8 (Ky. Ct. App., Jan. 19, 1996); 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 1975 (Ohio Ct. App., May 1
Provision in the standard broad form endorsement to comprehensive general liability insurance policy,…

Kit-San-Azusa v. United States,
1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 10370 (Fed. Cir. Ct. App., May 7, 1996).
Government contractor’s differing site conditions claim based on the discovery of unanticipated boulders during excavation was upheld even though the Government’s general description of the site stated that cobbles and boulders were present at…

West-Fair Elec. Contractors v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.,
78 F.3d 61, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 3912 (2d Cir. March 6, 1996).
Neither general contractor nor surety could assert pay-when-paid clause as defense to payment claim by subcontractor because clause, which operated as a condition precedent to payment, constituted a prospective waiver of lien rights and therefore violated New York Lien Law. 
Defendant Gilbane Construction Co. (“General Contractor”) was the general contractor on a construction project in White Plains, NY. General Contractor hired plaintiff L.J. Coppola, Inc. (“Subcontractor”) to perform a portion of the work. General Contractor maintained a payment bond with defendant Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. (“Surety”) for the benefit of all its subcontractors.

Bell South Communications, Inc. dba Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. Dekalb Concrete Pro
1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11443 (D.S.C. July 27, 1995)
BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (“Southern Bell”) initiated interpleader proceedings to determine which one of three Defendants held priority in the debt owed by Southern Bell to the fourth Defendant, Kelly Green, Inc. (“Kelly Green”). Each of the three Defendants were creditors to Kelly Green. In June of 1993, Southern Bell contracted Kelly Green to perform miscellaneous work connected with burying underground telephone cable. Kelly Green, in turn, subcontracted a portion of the work to Defendant Dekalb Concrete Products, Inc. (“Dekalb”). Shortly thereafter, Kelly Green failed to pay Dekalb, Defendant, Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) for employment related taxes and Defendant King & Vernon, P.A. (“King & Vernon) for legal services rendered.

M.A. Mortenson Co. v. City of Grand Rapids,
1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11626 (W.D. Mich. July 27, 1995)
For the construction of a water filtration system, the City of Grand Rapids (“Grand Rapids”), as the owner of the project, contracted with, inter alia, Greeley and Hansen to provide engineering services, and Envirex, Inc. (“Envirex”) for flocculation and sedimentation equipment (the “equipment”). After delivery and installation, the equipment allegedly did not work properly, and it sustained stress related damage. Several claims ensued.

Tym v. Ludwig,
1995 Wisc. App. LEXIS 974 (Wisc. Ct. App. Aug. 9, 1995)
Slander of Title – Lawyer who filed a mechanics’ lien against a homeowner’s property on behalf of contractor that constructed the home was not entitled to summary judgment on homeowner’s slander of title claim because the record had not been sufficiently developed regarding the issue of whether the lawyer had a reasonable ground or believing the truth of the facts pleaded in the mechanics’ lien claim.

Royal Electric Construction Corp. v. Ohio State University,
73 Ohio St. 3d 110, 652 N.W.2d. 687, 1995 Ohio LEXIS 18905 (Ohio Sup. Ct. Aug. 15, 1995)
Prejudgment Interest – Contractor that succeeded on delay and disruption claim was entitled to pre-judgment interest from the date of substantial completion; Ohio rejects rule that pre-judgement interest is only available when claim is “liquidated” or “capable of ascertainment.”