Contracts

Subscribe to Contracts via RSS

Industrial Steel Construction, Inc. v. Lunda Construction Company, 33 F.4th 1038, 1041 (8th Cir. 2022)

This federal case relates to the construction of a bridge over the Mississippi River between Iowa and Illinois. The state of Iowa hired Lunda Construction Company (Lunda) as the general contractor for the project, which contracted Industrial Steel Construction, Inc. (ISC) to fabricate the structural steel for the bridge. A breach of contract dispute arose between Lunda and ISC that resulted in an arbitration pursuant to the contractual dispute resolution provisions. The arbitrator ruled entirely in favor of Lunda, including awarding Lunda its attorneys’ fees and expert costs, and requiring ISC to reimburse Lunda for its half of the cost of the arbitration.

2700 Bohn Motor, LLC v. F.H. Myers Construction Corp., 338 So.3d 500 (La. Ct. App. 2022).

This case involved the restoration of an old building in New Orleans. Fire broke out, resulting in a loss that was paid by the owner’s builder’s risk insurance. The builder’s risk carriers — subrogated to the rights of the owner — then sued the prime contractor, its subcontractor, and sub-subcontractor for negligence.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).