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,
Construction Dispute
Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Holds Contractor Was Entitled To Rely On Soil Boring Logs and Design Features in Contract Documents, Even Though General Description of Site Stated that Boulders Were Present
By Constructlaw on
Posted in Construction Dispute, Government Contracts
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…
Second Circuit Holds That Pay-When-Paid Clause Violates Public Policy Expressed in New York Lien Law
By Constructlaw on
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.
District Court in South Carolina Holds Subcontractor for Underground Utility Work Not Entitled to Statutory Lien Applicable to Erection, Alteration or Repairs of Buildings; IRS Takes Priority
By Constructlaw on
Posted in Construction Dispute, Contracts
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.
District Court in Michigan Holds that Manufacturer of Water Treatment Equipment May Have Action Upon Implied Contract Against Owner’s Engineer for Costs of Redesign and Modification of Equipment to Make Treatment System Work
By Constructlaw on
Posted in Construction Dispute
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.
Wisconsin Court of Appeals Holds that Filing of Mechanics Lien Claim Without Adequate Investigation as to Timeliness Can Subject Attorneys to Liability for Slander of Title
By Constructlaw on
Posted in Construction Dispute
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.
Ohio Supreme Court Holds Contractor Entitled to Prejudgment Interest on Damages for Delay and Disruption; Liquidated/Unliquidated Damages Dichotomy Rejected
By Constructlaw on
Posted in Construction Dispute, Contracts
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.”
Claims Court Reviews Standards for False Claims Act and Contracts Disputes Act Liability for Inaccurate Claims
By Constructlaw on
Posted in Construction Dispute, Contracts
Al Munford, Inc. v. United States,
1995 U.S. Claims LEXIS 163 (Cl. Ct. August 15, 1995)
False Claims Act – Federal contractor violated the False Claims Act, 41 U.S.C. 3729 (1988) when it submitted a certified claim to the contracting officer which included amounts which the Government had previously paid.
California Court of Appeals Holds Contrator Properly Debarred from Bidding on Municipality’s Public Works Projects for Submitting a Greatly Inflated Claim
By Constructlaw on
Posted in Construction Dispute
Stacy & Witbeck, Inc. v. San Francisco,
42 Cal. Rptr. 2d 805, 1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 658 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 17, 1995)
A municipal public utilities commission’s order barring a contractor from bidding on the municipality’s public works projects for five years was upheld by the California appellate court where the commission found that the contractor had knowingly submitted a greatly inflated delay and disruption claim.