Contracts

Subscribe to Contracts via RSS

1800 Ocotillo, LLC v. WLB Group, Inc.
2008 Ariz. App. LEXIS 9 (Jan. 29, 2008)
The Court of Appeals of Arizona held that a state statute prohibiting design professionals for contracting for indemnity for their sole negligence does not as matter of law prohibit the use of limitation of damages provisions in professional service contracts.
In 1998, a real estate developer, 1800 Ocotillo, undertook the development of a townhouse project in Phoenix that bordered the Arizona Canal. Developer hired an engineering-architectural firm, The WLB Group, to perform surveying, engineering and landscape architecture services on the project. Developer had its design-build contractor sign the contract with the engineering-architectural firm, which included a limitation of damages provision limiting its exposure to the amount of its fees. While the parties never specifically discussed this provision, the entire contract was incorporated into a supplemental contract between the Developer and the engineering architectural firm approximately two years later.

Jalapenos, LLC v. GRC General Contractor, Inc.,
2007 PA Super 391, 2007 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4411 (Dec. 19, 2007)
Jalapenos, LLC, hired GRC General Contractor, Inc. to remodel a restaurant. The parties signed standard American Institute of Architects contracts (AIA Forms A101 and A201 – 1997). Under the contract, Jalapenos was required to obtain Builder’s Risk “all-risk” property insurance or equivalent, or inform the contractor in writing before the work began if it did not intend to purchase such insurance. Furthermore, if GRC was damaged by Jalapenos’ failure to maintain the required insurance without notifying GRC, then Jalapenos would be liable for all reasonable costs attributable to such failure.

U.S. ex rel. Platinum Mechanical, LLC v. U.S. Surety. Co.
07 Cv. 3318(CLB), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94026( S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2007)
CFP Group, Inc. was awarded a contract with the United States Government to refurbish facilities at Stewart Air National Guard Base in New York. Platinum Mechanical, LLC subcontracted to perform all of the plumbing and HVAC work for the Project. All work on the Project was to be completed by March 12, 2007. Notice to proceed issued on June 14, 2006.

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. v. Technip USA Corp.
2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 9951, No. 01-06-00535-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 21, 2007)
The Court of Appeals of Texas for the First District was asked to review a trial court’s limitation of a jury award for damages to only those damages associated with defective work. In making its ruling, the Court of Appeals was asked to assess the extent of a waiver of consequential damages clause and which damages were considered consequential barred by said clause. After overlapping contract provisions and the damages sought, the Court of Appeals found that damages flowing from delay were recoverable so long as they were direct, meaning that they flowed naturally and necessarily from the delay.

United States Fire Insurance Co. v. J.S.U.B., Inc. and Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Pozzi Window Co.
2007 Fla. LEXIS 2394 and 2007 Fla. LEXIS 2391 (Dec. 20, 2007)
On December 20, 2007, the Florida Supreme Court decided United States Fire Insurance Company, et al. v. J.S.U.B., Inc., et al., 2007 Fla. LEXIS 2394, and Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Pozzi Window Company, et al., 2007 Fla. LEXIS 2391 – two cases dealing with whether a standard form CGL policy with products completed operations hazard coverage issued to a general contractor, cover a general contractor’s liability to a third party for repair and/or replacement costs due to defective work by its subcontractor.

La Liberte, LLC v. Keating Building Corp. v. Roman Mosaic and Tile Co.
Civ. A. No. 07-1397, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90878 (E.D. Pa., Dec. 11, 2007)
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed the third-party complaint of the defendant holding that the statute of limitations had expired on the defendant’s performance bond claims against surety companies.
Plaintiff La Liberte LLC sued Defendant Keating Building Corporation for breach of contract, breach of implied warranty, and breach of express warranty in connection with the work Keating performed on a hotel owned by La Liberte. Under the contract between La Liberte and Keating, Keating was to make renovations and construct an addition to La Liberte’s hotel. Keating, in turn, entered into several subcontracts. Among them, Keating contracted with Voegele Mechanical Inc. and Shannon Plastering and Drywall Corporation. Both subcontracts contained warranty provisions which ran one year from acceptance by La Liberte. Voegele and Shannon obtained performance bonds for the benefit of Keating. The performance bonds contained the following identical provisions:

C&I Steel, LLC v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co.
70 Mass. App. Ct. 653, 2007 Mass. App. LEXIS (App. Ct. Nov. 6, 2007)
The town of Westford awarded Peabody Construction Company, Inc. (“Peabody”) a contract for construction of a middle school. The project required a payment bond which Peabody obtained from Travelers Casualty and Surety Company (“Travelers”) for the full value of the contract. Peabody, as principal, and Travelers, as surety, jointly and severally bound themselves “to [Westford] to pay for labor, materials and equipment furnished for use in the performance of the [c]onstruction [c]ontract.” The bond set forth that the construction contract incorporated the agreement between Westford and Peabody, including all the contract documents and changes thereto.

United States ex rel E & H Steel Corp. v. C. Pyramid Enterprises, Inc
Civil Action No. 06-4209, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 27347 (3d Cir. Nov. 27, 2007)
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed a decision of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in which the primary question was whether a particular project participant, responsible for supplying structural steel, was a “subcontractor” for purposes of the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. § 3131, et seq. Reviewing the Supreme Court interpretations and the intent of the Miller Act, the Third Circuit reversed the District Court’s decision and held that the project participant at issue was a “subcontractor” under the Miller Act, because it had a substantial and important relationship with the prime contractor. Accordingly, a fabricator which had contracted to furnish steel to it could sue on the bond.

Copper Mountain, Inc. v. Industrial Systems, Inc.
2007 Colo. App. LEXIS 2298 (Colo. App. Ct. Nov. 29, 2007)
Copper Mountain, Inc. hired Amako Resort Construction, Inc. as the general contractor to renovate and expand a mountain resort lodge. Amako subcontracted with Industrial to build the steel framework for the project. The parties signed a standard American Institute of Architects (AIA A201) contracts, which required Copper to obtain property insurance to cover damages for the work. To comply with this requirement, Copper relied on its all-purpose insurance policy that provided coverage for all of Copper Mountain, including the work and adjacent properties, instead of purchasing separate insurance policy, which would cover only the expansion and renovation work.

Dooley & Mack Constructors, Inc., v. Developers Surety & Indemnity Company
2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 17769 (Fla. Ct. App. Nov. 7, 2007)
Dooley & Mack Constructors, Inc. (“Contractor”), the general contractor on a Miami-Dade Community College project, was the obligee on a performance bond issued by Developers Surety and Indemnity Company (“Surety”), on behalf of Buildtec Construction Group, Inc., the masonry subcontractor (“Subcontractor”). After Subcontractor defaulted by abandoning the job, Contractor completed the masonry work itself and sued the Surety for the resulting damages.