General Contractors

Subscribe to General Contractors via RSS

SDSP, LLC v. Attias, 2023 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1518

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated a multimillion-dollar award to subcontractors arising from a payment dispute, and remanded the matter to the trial court for an attorney’s fees award to the developer who prevailed on appeal. This is a strong reminder to all tiers of the construction chain that Pennsylvania’s Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act (CASPA) allows substantially prevailing parties — whether owners, contractors, or subcontractors — to recover fees incurred in proceedings involving payment claims.

Fed. Eng’rs & Constructors Inc. v. Relyant Global LLC, No. 3:19-CV-73-KAC-JEM, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95617 (E.D. Tenn., May 27, 2022)

This case arises out of the renovation of a U.S. Air Force dormitory in Missouri. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers hired Relyant Global LLC to act as the prime contractor. Relyant subcontracted with Federal Engineers and Constructors, Inc. (FE&C). Relyant later terminated its subcontract with FE&C. FE&C filed suit against Relyant, and Relyant moved for judgment on the pleadings.

Entech Engineering, P.C. v. Dewberry Engineers, Inc., 204 A.D.3d 467, 167 N.Y.S.3d 55 (1st Dep’t 2022)

The New York Supreme Court Appellate Division recently affirmed a ruling enforcing a pay-if-paid provision.

Defendant Dewberry Engineers, Inc. (Dewberry) contracted with the New York City Economic Development Corporations’ Build-It- Back Hurricane Sandy Program to inspect homes for structural, asbestos, and lead paint issues. Dewberry retained Entech Engineering PC (Entech) to perform pre-construction lead paint inspections of homes. The subcontract contained a pay-if-paid clause that made the city’s payment to Dewberry a condition precedent to Dewberry’s obligation to pay Entech.

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.

New York State Thruway Auth. v. CHA Consulting, Inc., 165 N.Y.S.3d 832 (Albany Co., Sup. Ct. 2022).

This case involved a dispute over a wind turbine project. The root cause of the dispute was a bust between the “wind turbulence” at the site, and the wind turbulence that the turbines installed could withstand. Once the project was completed and commissioned, the overworked turbines prematurely failed.

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.

This article summarizes statutory remedies available to contractors, subcontractors and material suppliers when upstream parties fail or refuse to release payments on public and private construction projects. Entities furnishing work or materials have several statutory means to enforce their rights to payment, including mechanic’s liens, payment bond claims, and/or claims…

Most are familiar with California’s harsh penalty for unlicensed contractor work. California Business and Professions Code Section 7031 (Section 7031) bars any recovery for compensation for work performed by an unlicensed contractor under any theory of recovery “regardless of the merits of the cause of action.” Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code § 7031(a). It is well-established that subcontractors are covered by Section 7031 from recovering from owners and general contractors if not properly licensed. See Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code § 7026. However, in Kim v. TWA Construction, Inc., 78 Cal.App.5th 808 (2022), the California Court of Appeal, in a matter of first impression, expanded the effect of Section 7031(a) to bar a licensed general contractor recovering from an owner for work completed by an unlicensed subcontractor.