General Contractors

Subscribe to General Contractors via RSS

Dur v. Western Branch Diesel, Inc.
2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 16237 (4th Cir. July 9, 2007)
Following the precedent of the Supreme Court of Virginia in Sensenbreunner v. Rust. Orling & Neale, Architects, Inc., 374 S.E.2d 55 (Va. 1988), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s grant of a motion for summary judgment. The Court held that damage to an owner’s boat caused by an electrical fire fell within the scope of the contract between the owner’s general contractor and the subcontractor and amounted to nothing more than economic loss, which barred the owner from maintaining a cause of action for negligence against the subcontractor.

U.S. ex. rel. Straightline Corp. v. American Casualty Corp.
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50688 (N.D. W. Va 2007)
The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia held that a “pay-if-paid” clause was not a valid defense to a Miller Act claim. Straightline, involved a contract dispute…

Trinity Church v. Atkin
925 A.2d 720, 2007 N.J.Super.LEXIS195 (N,J, Super, App. Div., June 27, 2007)
Contractual clauses providing for the date of accrual on construction projects are valid in New Jersey. The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed summary judgment in favor of defendants who allegedly performed defective renovation and construction work on a historical building because the plaintiff failed to file a timely action within the period of the statute of limitations.

Integrated Project Services v. HMS Interiors, Inc.
2007 Pa. Super 246, 2007 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2606 (Pa. Super Ct., April 16, 2007)
This is an appeal from a decision in the lower court wherein a general contractor, “Integrated Project Services, (“General Contractor”) sued a subcontractor, HMS Interiors, Inc. (“Subcontractor”) for a declaratory judgment that the Subcontractor was obligated to indemnify the General Contractor for the General Contractor’s negligence. The Subcontractor filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings which was granted by the lower court and the General Contractor appealed that decision.

Plasticert, Inc. v. Westfield Insurance Company
2007 Pa. Super 124, 2007 Pa. Super. LEXIS 820 (Pa. Super Ct., May 1, 2007)
Plasticert manufactures thermoplastic wheels used in gravity flow product lines. A customer sued it because wheels that the customer purchased were breaking and cracking, and were determined not to have been manufactured to the customer’s specifications.
Plasticert carried general commercial liability (“CGL”) insurance and an umbrella policy both issued by Westfield Insurance Company. Plasticert filed a declaratory judgment action against Westfield, to determine, inter alia, coverage under the policies. The trial court determined, and the parties conceded, that the exclusionary language in both policies was similar so that the outcome of the instant matter would be the same under both policies.

Scandale Associated Builders & Engineers, Ltd. v. Bell Justice Facilities Corp.
No. 4:03-CV-1773, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25112 (M.D. Pa. April 4, 2007)
In January 2001, Scandale Associated Builders & Engineers, Ltd. (“Scandale”) entered into a subcontract (“Subcontract”) with Bell Justice Facilities Corporation (“Bell”) for work on the construction of the U.S. Penitentiary/Federal Prison Camp at Canaan, Pennsylvania (“Prison”). The Subcontract required Scandale to perform cast-in-place concrete work on the Prison. Bell was the general contractor and the United States through the Federal Bureau of Prisons was the Owner.

Universal Underwriters Insurance Co. v. A. Richard Kacin, Inc.
916 A.2d 686 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007)
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that the American Institute of Architects’ (“AIA”) form waiver of subrogation clause barred a subrogation claim even where the loss was created by the contractor’s own negligence. Relying on Penn Avenue Place Assoc., L.P. v. Century Steel Erectors, Inc., 798 A.2d 256 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002), the court held that a warranty provision did not invalidate the waiver of subrogation and opined that the warranty provision provided a remedy only to the extent that losses were not covered by insurance. The court further held that an insurer does not need to be party to the contract containing the waiver of subrogation clause nor does the insurer need to consent to or have notice of the waiver of subrogation clause in order for it to be enforceable.

Dynalectric Co. v. Whittenberg Constr. Co.
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27025 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 10, 2007)
Defendant project-owner Luther F. Carson Four Rivers Center, Inc. contracted with Whittenberg Construction Company to serve as general contractor in the construction of a fine arts facility and with defendant Ray Black & Son, Inc. to serve as construction manager. Whittenberg contracted the electrical contracting work to Plaintiff Dynalectric. Dynalectric brought suit against Four Rivers and Black, alleging that they had caused its work to take longer and cost more than anticipated and as a result Dynalectric had not been fully compensated for its work on the project.

Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, Inc.
2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 7808 (3d Cir., Apr. 5, 2007 )
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that, despite the commercial practice to the contrary, a subcontractor was not bound by the qualified bid it submitted to a general contractor. The subcontractor’s bid plainly stated that the price was for information purposes only and should not be relied on by the recipient.
General Contractor Fletcher-Harlee solicited subcontract bids for concrete work. As is an industry custom, Fletcher-Harlee stated in its solicitation letter that bids must be held open for a minimum of 60 days and also that the subcontractor must agree to be accountable for the prices and proposals submitted. Pote Concrete Contractors submitted a written bid. However, Pote included a disclaimer in its submission. In the bid, Pote stated that the price quote was for informational purposes only, was not a firm offer, should not be relied on and that Pote did not agree to be held liable for any of the terms that it submitted.

Harborview Office Ctr., LLC v. Camosy Inc.
2006 Wisc. App. LEXIS 149 (Wis. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2006)
Project owner Harborview entered into a contract for the construction of a three-story office building. After discovering significant water infiltration problems, Harborview filed suit against the parties who had provided services in its construction: the general contractor, the architectural firm, the installer of aluminum windows, and the installer of the Exterior Insulation and Finishing System (EIFS). Harborview alleged negligence and breach of contract against each and claimed that in order to resolve the water infiltration problem it would be necessary to remove and replace all of the building’s windows. Harborview hired an expert, who was an architect and engineer, to identify the causes of the problem, evaluate a correction process, and ultimately oversee the remediation process.