Jay Jala, LLC v. DDG Construction, Inc., No. 15-3948, 2016 US Dist. LEXIS 150969 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 1, 2016)

Jay Jala, LLC was the owner of a motel construction project in Allentown, Pennsylvania. DDG Construction, Inc. was the contractor.  The project was delayed during construction and, four months after the specified completion date, DDG abandoned the project.  Jay Jala terminated DDG for default, completed the project, and initiated this action.

The contract provided that the parties “waive Claims against each other for consequential damages arising out of or relating to this Contract.” During litigation, DDG stipulated that it breached the contract but moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that Jay Jala’s damages were consequential, and thus waived.

U.S. Pipelining LLC v. Johnson Controls, Inc., No. 16-00132 HG-RLP, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150767 (D. Haw. Oct. 31, 2016)

This action arose out of the renovation of a condominium complex on Maui (Project). Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI) was the general contractor and U.S. Pipelining LLC (USP) was a subcontractor. While the parties disputed who was ultimately responsible for obtaining a license for the work, the Subcontract included a provision that required USP to “obtain[] all licenses and permits required for the prosecution of the Work.” Nonetheless, USP performed its work without obtaining a license from the State of Hawaii. During the Project, a dispute arose between the parties. USP filed a complaint alleging various claims against JCI and others, seeking payment for the additional work it allegedly performed.

Chapter 444 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes (the “Statute”) requires contractors to obtain a license before performing any renovation work on real property.

Tribal Casino Gaming Enterprise v. W.G. Yates & Sons Constr. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86100 (W.D. NC July 1, 2016)

Tribal Casino Gaming Enterprise (the “Casino”) contracted with joint general contractors, W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Company and Rentenback Constructors Inc. (the “Contractor”) for an expansion of the Casino’s facility in Cherokee, North Carolina.  Following completion, two parking decks constructed during the project partially collapsed.  The Casino contended that the parking deck failures resulted from the Contractor’s faulty work.

The Casino submitted a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”), asserting contractual, tort, and statutory claims against the Contractor.  The Contractor filed a motion with the Western District of North Carolina seeking to stay the AAA arbitration.  Citing the doctrine of contractual impossibility and due process concerns, the Contractor argued that the arbitration clause in the parties’ contract was unenforceable because it required that the arbitral panel issue an award within 30 days, which the Contractor contended was unreasonable under the circumstances of the complex dispute.

Blackman & Co., Inc., v. GE Bus. Fin. Servs., Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87904 (D.N.J. July 7, 2016)

Grove Street Realty Urban Renewal, LLC (“Grove Street”) contracted with Blackman & Co., Inc. (“Blackman”) to manage a project (the “Project”) to construct a four-story apartment building in West Deptford, New Jersey between 2007 and 2009 (the “Contract”).  The Contract incorporated AIA Document A201-1997 – General Conditions of the Contract for Construction.

GEBFS acquired the Project from Grove Street pursuant to foreclosure proceedings in 2012.  Three years after it acquired the Project (and six years after construction was complete), GEBFS filed a $4,000,000 Demand for Arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) against Blackman for alleged post-construction defects, asserting claims for breach of contract and breach of implied warranty.  Blackman filed an action in response to GEBFS’ Demand for Arbitration, seeking a judgment that the dispute was not governed by any agreements to arbitrate.

Scott Enters., Inc. v. City of Allentown, 2016 Pa. LEXIS 1503 (Pa. July 19, 2016)

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed an order of the Commonwealth Court and held that the prompt payment provisions of the Commonwealth Procurement Code, 62 Pa. C.S. §3931-3939 (the “Prompt Payment Act”), do not mandate an award of penalty interest and attorneys’ fees upon a finding that the government withheld payments from the contractor in bad faith.

On June 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the matter of Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 136 S. Ct. 1989 (2016), changing the legal landscape for False Claims Act qui tam claims concerning the implied false certification theory of liability. This article will discuss the Escobar holding and examine relevant considerations for contractors in light of this ruling.

Elliott-Lewis Corp. v. Skanksa USA Bldg., Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59406 (E.D.Pa. May 4, 2016)

The Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that the narrow exception to the economic loss doctrine carved out in Bilt-Rite Contractors, Inc. v. The Architectural Studio – where the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that architects and other design professionals may be held liable to third parties that rely to their detriment on false information provided in design documents by architects and other design professionals – does not apply to a contractor that supplied information to design professionals in connection with remedial work performed by the contractor.

ITT Water & Wastewater USA, Inc. v. L. D’Agostini & Sons, Inc., 2016 Mich. App. LEXIS 579 (March 17, 2016)

This action arises out of a contract dispute between plaintiff, ITT Water & Wastewater USA, Inc. (“ITT”), and defendant, L. D’Agostini & Sons, Inc./Lakeshore Engineering Services, Inc. Joint Venture (“D’Agostini”), related to ITT’s supply of eight water pumps to D’Agostini on a project to construct a sanitary and storm water treatment and pumping station.  D’Agostini filed a counterclaim against ITT, alleging that ITT’s late pump delivery delayed the project by 103 days.  The trial court granted ITT’s motion for partial summary disposition and ruled that D’Agostini could not rely upon the Eichleay formula for determining its alleged home office overhead damages.  The parties then dismissed, without prejudice, the remaining claims and D’Agostini appealed.

Summit Contracting Grp., Inc. v. Ashland Heights, LP,  2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60662 (M.D. Tenn. May 6, 2016)

Ashland Heights, LP (“Owner”) contracted with Summit Contracting Group, Inc. (“Contractor”) to construct an assisted living facility in Tennessee.  After completing the project, Contractor alleged that Owner had failed to pay Contractor in full for the work it performed; to make timely payments; to provide Contractor a time extension for inclement weather; and to deposit retainage into an interest-bearing escrow account as required by Tennessee’s Retainage Law.

Contractor filed a breach of contract and Retainage Law action in federal district court, seeking damages and litigation costs in excess of $1.5 million (the “Contract Action”).  Contractor concurrently filed a mechanic’s lien action in state court seeking enforcement of the lien in the amount of $1,074,688.74 (the “Lien Action”).

Flintco Pacific, Inc. v. TEC Management Consultants, Inc., 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 594 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. June 21, 2016)

There was an important California decision published on July 19, 2016 (decided June 21, 2016) regarding damages due to reliance on a subcontractor bid of which all General Contractors should be aware.  A general contractor can usually recover damages if a subcontractor does not honor its bid price; which price the general has relied upon in submitting its bid to the owner.  The Court of Appeals has set forth significant limitations on a general contractor’s recovery for damages usually founded under the theory of promissory estoppel.