Contracts

Subscribe to Contracts via RSS

Atlantic City Associates, LLC v. Carter & Burgess Consultants, Inc., et al
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9191 (3rd Cir. May 4, 2011)

* Please note that the Third Circuit issued this opinion as a non precedential opinion pursuant to Third Circuit Internal Operating Procedure Rule 5.7.

Atlantic City Associates (“ACA”) hired Carter & Burgess Consultants, Inc. (“C&B”) to oversee construction of a development in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Following numerous delays, ACA sued C&B and obtained a total recovery, including attorneys’ fees, costs and interest, of nearly $13 million. On appeal, C&B argued that the District Court failed to apply several clauses of the parties’ agreement waiving consequential damages, and failed to enforce an additional clause limiting C&B’s total liability to its compensation.

Los Angeles Unified School District v. Great American Insurance Company
49 Cal. 4th 739 (July 12, 2010)

On July 12, 2010, the California Supreme Court filed a ruling significant to public entities entering into contracts for public works projects. In Los Angeles Unified School District v. Great American Insurance Company, the Court held that a public entity “may be required to provide extra compensation if it knew, but failed to disclose, material facts that would affect the contractor’s bid or performance,” even when the failure to disclose information was not fraudulent. Articulating a test modeled after the federal courts’ superior knowledge doctrine, the high court articulated four conditions that must be met for such liability to attach.

Trevdan Building Supply v. Toll Brothers, Inc.
2010 PA Super. 100, 996 A.2d 520 (May 28, 2010)

On May 28, 2010 the Pennsylvania Superior Court filed a ruling that is significant to project owners as well as subcontractors and suppliers. In Trevdan Building Supply v. Toll Brothers, Inc., the Court held that an unpaid supplier had an “equitable lien” on contract funds that the owner had interpleaded into Court; and that the contractor, its bankruptcy estate and its secured bank creditor did not have a cognizable interest in the contract funds because, under the terms of the construction contract, the contractor did not earn the funds until it had both performed the work and paid its suppliers. The Court considered the unpaid supplier’s rights to be so clear that the Court denied the owner’s statutory claim to be reimbursed its attorneys’ fees for filing the interpleader action, stating that the owner was guilty of “delay” and acted “unreasonably” by “ignoring” the supplier’s equitable claim and refusing “to exercise its undisputed contractual right to pay” the supplier (this despite two judges in the same case – the trial judge and a dissenting Superior Court judge – having decided the case differently).

Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. City of Mont Belvieu
2010 U.S. App. Lexis 14277 (5th Cir. July 13, 2010)

The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that a Texas City’s bond claim was time barred under the statute of limitations and equitable remedies based on estoppel were unavailable to revive claims on the bond.

Hartford Fire Insurance Company issued a performance bond for a contractor constructing a public recreational facility for the City of Mont Belvieu, Texas. The bond was a requirement under Texas public work contracts. By statute, the bond was subject to a one-year limitations period commencing from project final completion. The project progressed with numerous delays and changes. However, the City issued a certificate of occupancy in mid-2001, taking possession and operating the facility by July 2002.

At that time, numerous punch list items remained and several subcontractors owed payment by contractor filed claims on a payment bond. Hartford advised the City to be cautious when releasing further payment to contractor. Thereafter, in July 2002, City paid contractor almost $675,000 as an equitable adjustment via a change order. Critically, the change order stated that the project’s completion date was July 19, 2001.

Indianapolis – Marion County Public Library v. Charlier Clark & Linard, P.C
2010 Ind. LEXIS 397 (Indiana, June 29, 2010)

The Indianapolis-Marion County Public Library entered into contracts with Woollen Molzan and Partners, Inc. (“Architect”) for the design for the renovation and expansion of the Library’s facility including its parking garage. The Architect entered into subcontracts with Thornton Tomasetti Engineers (“TTE”) and Charlier Clark and Linard, P.C. (“CCL”) to perform architectural and engineering services. TTE performed structural engineering services and CCL administered various services for the Project, including reviewing and inspecting the construction plans and construction progress to determine if construction was in general compliance with the construction documents. The Library never consulted directly with TTE or CCL.

Circle Y Construction, Inc. v. WRH Realty Services, Inc.
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67812 (N.D. Ga. July 8, 2010)

Circle Y Construction, Inc. contracted with WRH Hidden Colony to perform certain renovation work at nine unoccupied apartment units. The contract designated Brown, vice president of construction services for WRH Realty Services, as the person responsible for administering the contract on behalf of WRH Hidden Colony and stated that Brown was the only person authorized to approve changes to the scope of work. The contract further provided that “all extra or changed work shall be authorized by a written change order.”

Raito, Inc. v. Cardi Corp.
2010 R.I. Super. LEXIS 108 (RI Super. Ct. July 14, 2010)

The Superior Court of Rhode Island was recently asked to reconsider its earlier ruling in which it found that a condition precedent to recovery under a performance bond was not satisfied and, therefore, summary judgment in favor of the surety was warranted. The Court found no reason to disturb its prior ruling and denied the motion for reconsideration.

Mastec North America, Inc. v. El Paso Field Services, L.P.
2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 3436 (Tex. App. May 6, 2010)

The Court of Appeals of Texas recently held that when a contract places the risk of differing site conditions on the contractor, the contractor is not required to bear the risk “that the bid documents misrepresent the nature and amount of the work to be performed.”

The matter involved replacement of a pipeline that extended from Houston to Corpus Christi. Defendant El Paso contracted with Plaintiff MasTec, for the replacement work.

Village of Sturtevant v. STS Consultants, Ltd.
2010 Wisc. App. LEXIS 433 (Wis. Ct. App. June 9, 2010)

The Court of Appeals of Wisconsin recently considered whether a design professional could maintain a claim for contribution against a subcontractor on the basis that the subcontractor had a duty to advise that the design was not suited for the intended application. The Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s dismissal of such claims on the basis that the subcontractor had no design or construction responsibility and therefore could not be a joint tortfeasor.

Harris Constr. Co., Ltd. v. GGP-Bridgeland, L.P.
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46477 (S.D. Tex. May 12, 2010)

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas determined that the issue whether the Texas Supreme Court would recognize a claim for breach of implied warranty against an owner or a design professional providing defective plans had been resolved by the Fifth Circuit in Interstate Contracting Corp. v. City of Dallas, 407 F.3d 708 (5th Cir. 2005). The Court concluded that the Texas would apply the Lonergan rule, which requires contractual language indicating an intent to shift the burden of risk of defective design to the owner or a design professional hired by the owner to make the plans and specifications.