General Contractors

Subscribe to General Contractors via RSS

R.W. Dunteman Company v. The Village of Lombard,
1996 Ill. App. LEXIS 375.
R.W. Dunteman Co. (Dunteman), entered into a construction contract with the Village of Lombard (Village), including the terms that Dunteman would remove and replace some road-way within the Village. The contract provided two different rates potentially applicable…

Electro Assocs., Inc. v. Harrop Constr. Co., Inc.,
908 S.W.2d 21 1995 Tex. App. LEXIS 1968 (Tex. Ct. App. August 24, 1995).
Because the contractor-subcontractor relationship is not a “special relationship” giving rise to common law duty to act in good faith, subcontractor’s suit against general contractor for breach of…

Roy A. Elam Masonry, Inc. v. Fru-Con Construction Corporation,
1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 481 (March 26, 1996).
On November 14, 1988, the general contractor, Fru-Con Construction Corp. (Fru-Con) entered into a construction contract with Southwestern Redevelopment Corp (SRC), the owner. In early 1989, Fru-Con and a subcontractor Roy A. Elam…

State of Florida, Department of Insurance v. The United States,
81 F.3d 1093 (U.S. App. 1996) LEXIS (Fed. Cir. 1996).
The construction contract at issue in this case resulted in a default termination of the contractor and the contractor’s surety. The surety’s receiver sued the United States for damages based…

J.P. Altmayer v. R.W. Johnson,
79 F.3d 1129 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
GSA had planned to order the carpet and trim for the office by August 1992 but did not do so despite repeated requests from Altmayer who tried to impress the importance of this for the contract to be completed…

Lahr Construction Corp. (doing business as LeCesse Construction Co.) v. J. Kozel & Son, Inc.,
640 N.Y.S.2d 957 (Misc 1996).
This is an action brought by a general contractor against a subcontractor for damages where the subcontractor moved for summary judgment saying that the general contractor could not recover damages…

Pavel Enterprises, Inc. v. A.S. Johnson Company, Inc.,
342 Md. 143; 674 A.2d 521; (1996)
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) solicited bids for a renovation project. Pavel Enterprises Incorporated (PEI), a general contractor, prepared a bid for the NIH work. In preparing its bid, PEI solicited sub-bids from various mechanical subcontractors. The A.S. Johnson Company (Johnson), a mechanical subcontractor, responded with a written scope of work proposal on July 27, 1993, giving a verbally submitted bid price on the morning of August 5, 1993, the day NIH opened the general contractors’ bids. Neither party disputes that PEI used Johnson’s sub-bid in computing its own bid.

West-Fair Elec. Contractors v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.,
78 F.3d 61, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 3912 (2d Cir. March 6, 1996).
Neither general contractor nor surety could assert pay-when-paid clause as defense to payment claim by subcontractor because clause, which operated as a condition precedent to payment, constituted a prospective waiver of lien rights and therefore violated New York Lien Law. 
Defendant Gilbane Construction Co. (“General Contractor”) was the general contractor on a construction project in White Plains, NY. General Contractor hired plaintiff L.J. Coppola, Inc. (“Subcontractor”) to perform a portion of the work. General Contractor maintained a payment bond with defendant Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. (“Surety”) for the benefit of all its subcontractors.

H. Verby Co., Inc. v. United States Fire Ins. Co.,
1996 E.S. Dist. LEXIS 3056 (March 13, 1996) (U.S.D.C., S.D.N.Y.).
A material supplier was entitled to recover on the general contractor’s payment bond even though it had received an assignment of two debts from general contractor; supplier had not made an “election of remedies” in accepting the assignment and there was no evidence that the contractor’s assignment discharged the underlying debt upon which the supplier sued the surety.
H. Verby Co., Inc. (“Supplier”) contracted with a Contractor to supply roofing waterproofing and insulations materials for a school roof replacement project. The Defendant, United States Fire Ins. Co. (“Surety”) and the Contractor executed a labor and material payment bond in favor of the Owner. After the Contractor refused the Supplier’s demands for payments, the Supplier brought the present action against the Surety for $61,068.44, the amount of the outstanding balance due.

Stratton & Co., Inc. v. Argonaut Ins. Co.,
1996 Ga. App. LEXIS 303 (Ga. Ct. App., March 14, 1996).
Provision in the standard form of comprehensive general liability insurance policy which excludes coverage for “property damage to the named insured’s products arising out of such products or any part of such products,” did not apply because the damage the “building” constructed was not the named insured’s “product.”
Stratton & Co., Inc. (“Contractor”) completed the construction of an office building and parking deck for Goldome Credit Realty Corporation (“Owner”). After complaining about the quality of the Contractor’s work, the Owner filed a lawsuit against the Contractor. The Contractor tendered the defense of that lawsuit to its insurance company, Argonaut Ins. Co. (“Insurer”), but the Insurer denied coverage and refused to defend the Contractor. Contractor ultimately settled the lawsuit with the Owner and paid $468,464.