Hanuman Chalisa, LLC v. BoMar Contr., Inc., 2022-Ohio-1111, 187 N.E.3d 1108 (Ct. App.)

Hanuman Chalisa LLC (owner) contracted BoMar Contracting, Inc. (BoMar) to construct a hotel in Columbus, OH. The contract consisted of the AIA A101-2007 and AIA A201-2007. The owner later terminated BoMar, alleging deficiencies in BoMar’s work. The parties disputed whether the owner terminated the contract “for cause” or “for convenience.”

Continue Reading Ohio Court Reforms Construction Contract to Correct “Manifest Absurdity” in Termination for Convenience Term

RKI Expl. & Prod., LLC v. Ameriflow Energy Servs., LLC, No. 02-20-00384-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 4331 (Tex. App. June 23, 2022)

A recent decision by the Court of Appeals of Texas highlights the perils of failing to properly assert a demand for contractual indemnity.

In 2014, a piece of equipment, known as a sand separator, exploded at an oil well in Loving County, TX, killing two individuals and injuring three others. RKI Exploration & Production LLC operated the oil well. RKI contracted with Ameriflow Energy Services LLC and Crescent Services LLC through two master service agreements (MSAs) and a series of work orders.

Continue Reading Not Everything Is Bigger in Texas: Court of Appeals Reverses Trial Court’s Expansive Interpretation of Indemnity Clause

United States ex rel. Spirtas Worldwide, LLC v. SGLC Consulting LLC, No. 3:21-CV-00182-MAB, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105589; 2022 WL 2116451 (S.D. Ill. June 13, 2022)

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois recently enforced a partially executed agreement to arbitrate where the party that failed to countersign demonstrated assent through its acts and conduct.

Continue Reading Illinois Federal District Court Enforces Partially Executed Agreement to Arbitrate

Triple B Servs., LLP v. City of Conroe, No. 09-21-00096-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 4824, 2022 WL 2720451 (Tex. App. July 14, 2022)

The Texas Court of Appeals recently affirmed a ruling granting the city of Conroe governmental immunity from a contractor’s lawsuit asserting claims for breach of contract and violation of the Texas Public Prompt Pay Act.

Continue Reading Texas Appellate Court Affirms Grant of Governmental Immunity From Suit Seeking Delay Costs

Pizzarotti, LLC v. X-Treme Concrete Inc., 205 A.D.3d 487 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

A New York appellate court recently affirmed the dismissal of a subcontractor’s counterclaims for delay damages and for unpaid amounts because they were barred by the parties’ no-damage-for-delay provision and executed lien waivers, respectively.

Continue Reading No-Damage-For-Delay Provisions and Lien Waivers Remain Enforceable — and Valuable — in New York

Constructural Dynamics, Inc. v. Thomas P. Carney, Inc., No. 1104 EDA 2021, 2022 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1500 (Pa. Super. July 1, 2022), reargument denied (Sept. 8, 2022).

Like many prompt payment acts, Pennsylvania’s Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act (CASPA) permits owners and contractors to withhold payment for good faith claims — but not forever. Owners and contractors who wait too long could find themselves litigating prompt payment claims and paying the penalties those acts impose on procrastinating payors. A recent decision by the Pennsylvania Superior Court provides some guidance on how long is “too long” to withhold.

Continue Reading Pennsylvania Superior Court Places Time Limit on Good Faith Withholding Under CASPA

Town of New Milford v. Std. Demolition Srvcs., Inc., 212 Conn. App. 30 (2022)

The case involved cleanup and environmental remediation of a vacant factory contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls and asbestos. The town of New Milford (Town) contracted with Standard Demolition Services, Inc. (Contractor) to perform the third phase of this cleanup and remediation. Following a series of disputes and project delays, the Town terminated the Contractor. At the time of termination, the Contractor had performed less than 10% of its scope of work. The Town then rebid the remaining work and hired a third-party to complete the project.

Continue Reading Careful Contract Drafting Could Mean Recovery of Liquidated Damages and Actual and Consequential Damages

Bank of America, N.A. v. ASD Gem Realty LLC, 205 A.D.3d 1, 164 N.Y.S.3d 566 (2022).

ASD Gem Realty LLC and ASD Diamond, Inc. (together, ASD or Owner) contracted Sweet Construction Corp. (Sweet) to renovate a commercial space in Manhattan’s Diamond District (the Project). ASD solicited proposals for the supply and installation of partitions in the space (the Work) and ultimately directed Sweet to hire Arenson Office Furnishings, Inc. (Arenson). Arenson subsequently entered into a subcontract with Sweet to complete the Work (the Subcontract).

Continue Reading NY Appellate Court Reaffirms Pay-When-Paid Provisions Are Void as Against Public Policy

DonRob Invs., L. P. v. 360 Residential, LLC, 870 S.E.2d 874 (Ga. Ct. App. 2022)

This case arose from a failed real estate transaction. DonRob Investments LP and Donald Robinson Investments, Inc. (collectively DonRob) agreed to sell, and 360 Residential LLC, 360 Sugar Hill LLC, and 360 Capital Company LLC, (collectively 360) agreed to purchase 12 acres (Site) of a 37-acre parcel of property in Sugar Hill, GA (the Agreement). The Site was in the middle of the parcel and flanked by two sections over which DonRob was to retain ownership. 360 planned to build apartments on the Site. DonRob planned to develop the other two sections into townhomes and commercial units.

Continue Reading GA Court of Appeals Enforces Contract Clause, Excluding Liability for Incidental Damages Where Specific Performance Is Ordered

Taylor Morrison of Tex. Inc. v. Caballero, No. 01-20-00800-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 1870, 2022 WL 839429 (Mar. 22, 2022)

Gary and Kelley Caballero contracted to purchase a new home to be constructed by Taylor Woodrow and Taylor Morrison of Texas, Inc. (Taylor). The contract contained an agreement to arbitrate any disputes with the American Arbitration Association (AAA) under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).

Continue Reading Texas Court of Appeals Enforces Arbitration Agreement Provision Delegating Issues of Arbitrability to Arbitrator