Contracts

Subscribe to Contracts via RSS

Archon Construction Co. v. U.S. Shelter, LLC, 2017 Ill. App. LEXIS 197 (March 31, 2017)

U.S. Shelter, LLC, a developer, undertook to develop a new residential subdivision in Elgin, Illinois. As part of that project, U.S. Shelter retained Archon Construction Company, Inc. (“Archon”) to install the sanitary sewer system for $890,955.29.

Archon’s contract provided that after the system was completed, Archon would videotape the interior of the piping, to allow the City of Elgin (“City”) to inspect and determine the acceptability of the system as installed.

Archon completed its work in August of 2005. In early 2007, the City requested that Archon perform the required videotaping.  Archon complied.

After viewing the videotapes, the City announced that the system, as installed, was not acceptable and that certain repairs were necessary. In particular, the City specified that one of the lines running through the system needed to be replaced because of cracking, the existence of gravel in the lines, and other issues.  While the entire sewer system had been constructed with PVC pipe, the City directed that this line be replaced with ductile iron pipe.

Central Ceilings, Inc. v. Suffolk Constr. Co., Inc., 2017 Mass App. Lexis 36 (March 29, 2017)

 The Massachusetts State College Building Authority contracted with Suffolk Construction Company (“Suffolk”) to serve as the general contractor for the construction of dormitories at Westfield State University (“the Project”). Suffolk subcontracted with Central Ceilings, Inc. (“Central”) to install interior and exterior framing, drywall, and door frames for the Project.

Central’s work was impeded by Suffolk’s failure to: coordinate the work of other trades; establish proper elevation, column, and control lines; timely and properly coordinate delivery of the door frames; and ensure that the buildings were weather-tight and properly heated. Its workers were forced to repeatedly demobilize from one area and remobilize in another, and to work in the same space and at the same time as other subcontractors, i.e. stacking of trades.  Central’s project manager and other supervisors were forced to coordinate and administrate the remobilizations.  Both the remobilizations and the stacking of trades significantly increased Central’s labor costs.

KICC –Alcan Gen. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37560 (March 16, 2017)

A Contractor/Construction Manager, KICC-Alcan General (“KICC”), entered into a subcontract with an MEP subcontractor, Superior Group (“Superior”), concerning the construction of two buildings at an airforce base in Alaska. Superior sued KICC for approximately $2 million in costs it incurred in excess of the contract value, allegedly caused by KICC’s failure to properly manage the project.  KICC tendered Superior’s claims to its Errors and Omissions insurance carrier, Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company (“C&F”).  C&F denied both defense and indemnity of Superior’s claims.  KICC settled its claims with Superior prior to trial.  KICC then sued C&F for its breach of the duty to defend and indemnify against Superior’s claims, as well as a breach of its duty of good faith.

The terms of KICC’s E&O policy provided coverage for “damages… because of… an act error or omission in the rendering or failure to render professional services by any insured.”  The contract defined “professional services” as “those functions performed for others by you or by others on your behalf that are related to your practice as a consultant, engineer, architect, surveyor, laboratory or construction manager.”

Superior alleged that KICC: mismanaged a soil contamination issue at the beginning of the project; failed to provide timely responses to requests for information and contract modifications; and directed other subcontractors to work in the same areas at the same time as Superior, resulting in delays and added costs to Superior on the project. Superior submitted a request for equitable adjustment (“REA”) for these costs and delays, but KICC denied the REA.  In its lawsuit, Superior asserted claims for breach of contract and quantum meruit.

Int’l Fidelity Ins. Co. v. Americaribe-Moriarty JV, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3628 (11th Cir. Feb. 28, 2017)

Americaribe-Moriarty Joint Venture (“Americaribe”) entered into a subcontract with Certified Pool Mechanics I, Inc. (“CPM”) for construction of a pool in a mixed-use development that Americaribe was building in Miami, Florida. CPM provided a performance bond, issued by International Fidelity Insurance Company and Allegheny Casualty Company (collectively, “Fidelity”) as security for performance of the pool subcontract.  According to Americaribe, CPM failed to perform its obligations under the pool subcontract.  As a result, Americaribe terminated CPM, made a claim on the performance bond, and contemporaneously hired a replacement contractor (“Dillon”) to complete CPM’s scope of work.

In the event of default by CPM, the subcontract required three days’ written notice before undertaking completion of CPM’s work. The bond incorporated the subcontract by reference and also required a further, but undefined, period of time after CPM’s termination during which Fidelity could evaluate options for responding to CPM’s alleged default.  In the event that Fidelity did not conduct such an evaluation with reasonable promptness, Americaribe could declare a default by Fidelity upon seven days’ written notice.  Although Americaribe provided the written notices of default, it proceeded to complete CPM’s work with Dillon before the notice periods expired.

Amberwood Dev., Inc. v. Swann’s Grading, Inc., No. 1 CA-CV 15-0786, 2017 Ariz. App. Unpub. LEXIS 207 (Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2017)

This case arose out of a housing development project, with Amberwood Development Inc. (“Amberwood”) acting as the general contractor and Swann’s Grading, Inc. (“SGI”), as a subcontractor. In their subcontract agreement, SGI agreed to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Amberwood from claims and “liability of every kind whatsoever arising out of or in connection with [SGI’s] work.”  This indemnity extended to any claims asserted by any subsequent owner alleging improper or defective workmanship.

After construction concluded, eighteen homeowners sued Amberwood, alleging numerous construction defects. Amberwood then sought indemnification from its subcontractors, including SGI. Ten of the eighteen homeowners arbitrated their claims to award and the remaining eight settled with Amberwood.  Amberwood then settled with all of its subcontractors except SGI.

Jay Jala, LLC v. DDG Construction, Inc., No. 15-3948, 2016 US Dist. LEXIS 150969 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 1, 2016)

Jay Jala, LLC was the owner of a motel construction project in Allentown, Pennsylvania. DDG Construction, Inc. was the contractor.  The project was delayed during construction and, four months after the specified completion date, DDG abandoned the project.  Jay Jala terminated DDG for default, completed the project, and initiated this action.

The contract provided that the parties “waive Claims against each other for consequential damages arising out of or relating to this Contract.” During litigation, DDG stipulated that it breached the contract but moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that Jay Jala’s damages were consequential, and thus waived.

On June 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the matter of Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 136 S. Ct. 1989 (2016), changing the legal landscape for False Claims Act qui tam claims concerning the implied false certification theory of liability. This article will discuss the Escobar holding and examine relevant considerations for contractors in light of this ruling.

ITT Water & Wastewater USA, Inc. v. L. D’Agostini & Sons, Inc., 2016 Mich. App. LEXIS 579 (March 17, 2016)

This action arises out of a contract dispute between plaintiff, ITT Water & Wastewater USA, Inc. (“ITT”), and defendant, L. D’Agostini & Sons, Inc./Lakeshore Engineering Services, Inc. Joint Venture (“D’Agostini”), related to ITT’s supply of eight water pumps to D’Agostini on a project to construct a sanitary and storm water treatment and pumping station.  D’Agostini filed a counterclaim against ITT, alleging that ITT’s late pump delivery delayed the project by 103 days.  The trial court granted ITT’s motion for partial summary disposition and ruled that D’Agostini could not rely upon the Eichleay formula for determining its alleged home office overhead damages.  The parties then dismissed, without prejudice, the remaining claims and D’Agostini appealed.

Flintco Pacific, Inc. v. TEC Management Consultants, Inc., 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 594 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. June 21, 2016)

There was an important California decision published on July 19, 2016 (decided June 21, 2016) regarding damages due to reliance on a subcontractor bid of which all General Contractors should be aware.  A general contractor can usually recover damages if a subcontractor does not honor its bid price; which price the general has relied upon in submitting its bid to the owner.  The Court of Appeals has set forth significant limitations on a general contractor’s recovery for damages usually founded under the theory of promissory estoppel.

Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba v. United States, 125 Fed. Cl. 469 (Fed. Cl. Mar 16, 2016)

The United States Naval Facilities Engineering Command (the “Navy”) contracted with the joint venture of Nova Group and Tutor-Saliva (the “JV”) for construction of a pier at the Puget Sound Navy Shipyard in Bremerton, Washington.  The contract assigned selection of pier stability assessment methods to the JV’s discretion.  Exercising that discretion, the JV selected a SAP 2000 model for performance design loads.  Five months after the Navy had approved the JV’s design submittals, the Navy’s construction manager voiced concerns about the design and questioned the JV’s reliance upon the SAP 2000 model.