Construction Dispute

Subscribe to Construction Dispute via RSS

With the signing of the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation in August 2019, there has been a newfound focus on how parties can improve and expand the use of alternative forms of dispute resolution outside conventional litigation and arbitration proceedings.  Pepper Hamilton attorneys Albert Bates…

This article was originally published on December 3, 2019 on ConsensusDocs. It is reprinted here with permission.

Construction contracts often include a “no damage for delay” clause that denies a contractor the right to recover delay-related costs and limits the contractor’s remedy to an extension of time for noncontractor-caused delays to a project’s completion date. Depending on the nature of the delay and the jurisdiction where the project is located, the contractual prohibition against delay damages may well be enforceable. This article will explore whether an enforceable no-damage-for-delay clause is also a bar to recovery of “acceleration” damages, i.e., the costs incurred by the contractor in its attempt to overcome delays to the project’s completion date.

Chinese Hosp. Ass’n v. Jacobs Eng’g Grp., Inc., 2019 BL 330340, 2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 03, 2019)

This case arises out of the alleged breach of contract and defective design for the construction of a new hospital in San Francisco.  During construction, property owner and plaintiff Chinese Hospital Association (“Chinese Hospital”) became aware of alleged defects involving the designs provided by its subcontractor, architect-defendant Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (“Jacobs”).  Chinese Hospital terminated its contract with Jacobs for convenience mid-construction.

Skanska USA Building, Inc. v. J.D. Long Masonry, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-00933, 2019 BL 336852, (D. Md. Sept. 9, 2019)

On September 9, 2019, a Maryland federal court awarded Skanska USA Building, Inc. (“Skanska”) compensatory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and litigation expenses including attorney and expert fees in its suit against subcontractor J.D. Long Masonry, Inc. (“Long”) for defective masonry work at a Johns Hopkins University research facility.

  1. Lost profits, not part of unpaid contract balance, may be recoverable as consequential damages in contract claim, but cannot be included in lien. TSP Services Inc. v. National-Standard, LLC, 2019 BL 340267 (Mich. Ct. App. Sept. 10, 2019)

National-Standard, LLC contracted TSP Services, Inc. for asbestos abatement, demolition, restoration,…

Precision Hydraulic Cylinders, Inc. v. Manufacturing. Technology, Inc., No. 7:18-CV-203-FL, 2019 BL 344743, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156670 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 13, 2019)

Precision Hydraulic Cylinders, Inc. (“Precision”) issued a series of purchase orders to Manufacturing Technology, Inc. (“MTI”) to weld steel components together to create hydraulic cylinders. MTI agreed to develop welds for Precision’s small and large cylinders under two separate purchase orders.

United Illuminating Company v. Whiting-Turner Contracting Co. v. Cherry Hill Construction Co., Inc., et al. v. GEI Consultants, Inc., et al., 3:18-cv-00327-WWE (D. Conn. 2019)

In 2010 The United Illuminating Company (“UI”), an electric utility company, and Whiting-Turner, a construction contractor, entered into a general contractor agreement for the construction of the United Illuminating Central Facility Project (the “Project”) in Orange, Connecticut.  The Project required construction of an office building, an operations building, and related parking lots and common driveways.  Whiting-Turner and Cherry Hill Construction Co. (“Cherry Hill”), a heavy civil construction contractor, then entered into a subcontractor agreement which required Cherry Hill to perform site work.

BML Properties Ltd. v. China Construction America Inc., et al., 101 N.Y.S. 3d 597 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

On July 2, 2019, a New York appellate court upheld a lower court ruling by Justice Saliann Scarpulla, denying a state-backed Chinese contractor’s attempt to compel international arbitration arising out of a dispute involving the construction of the multibillion Baha Mar mega-resort in the Bahamas.  As a result of the ruling in BML Properties Ltd. v. China Construction America Inc., et al., 101 N.Y.S. 3d 597 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019), aff’ing No. 657550/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 24, 2019), the $2.25 billion lawsuit alleging “one of the largest construction-based frauds in this hemisphere” will remain in the New York courts.  As explained below, for those in the international construction industry, the case will be worth following.

DAK Americas Mississippi, Inc. v. Jedson Engineering, Inc. et al, No. 1:18cv31-HSO-JCG, 2019 BL 208838 (S.D. Miss. June 6, 2019)

This dispute arose out of the design and construction of a concrete storage slab at DAK’s polymer resin manufacturing facility located in Hancock County, Mississippi.  DAK hired Ohio-based Jedson to design and oversee the construction of a cement slab suitable for commercial operating loaders and other heavy equipment necessary to transport, unload, and stack shipping containers.  DAK allegedly discovered substantial cracking and chipping of the cement, and filed suit in federal court claiming Jedson failed to design a slab suitable for DAK’s intended purposes.  DAK asserted claims for negligent design, negligent construction management, and breach of contract.

Popple Construction, Inc. v. Reilly Associates, Inc. No. 775-MDA-2017, 2019 BL 213236 (Pa. Sup. Ct., June 10, 2019).

On June 10, 2019, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed a lower court decision to deny a motion to dismiss in connection with a tort claim for negligent misrepresentation by a contractor against a third-party design/engineer.  The Court’s opinion highlights Pennsylvania’s exception to the economic loss doctrine insofar as it applies to claims raised by contractors against architects/engineers for faulty bidding documents, specifications, or designs.