Ed Kimber Heating & Cooling, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co.
No. 3:03cv2111 (SRU), 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3323 (D. Conn. Jan. 26, 2006)
Trataros Construction, Inc. (“Trataros”), the general contractor on a school addition and renovation project, subcontracted with Ed Kimber Heating & Cooling, Inc. (“Kimber”) for the performance of HVAC and plumbing work. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. (“Travelers”) issued payment and performance bonds as the surety for Trataros.

Gustine Uniontown Assocs., LTD v. Anthony Crane Rental, Inc.
2006 PA Super 12 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006)
In conjunction with its construction of a shopping mall over a non-functioning coal mine, project owner Gustine entered into a standard American Institute of Architect form of agreement, AIA B141, with the project architect ASG. Article 9.3 of the contract stated:
“Causes of action between the parties to this Agreement pertaining to acts or failures to act shall be deemed to have accrued and the applicable statutes of limitations shall commence to run not later than either the date of Substantial Completion for acts or failures to act occurring prior to Substantial Completion, or the date of issuance of the final Certificate for Payment for acts or failures to act occurring after Substantial Completion.”

City of Ferndale v. Florence Cement Co
2006 Mich. App. LEXIS 129, No. 254572 (January 17, 2006)
In City of Ferndale v. Florence Cement Co. and Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., 2006 Mich. App. LEXIS 129, No. 254572 (January 17, 2006), the Court held that the engineer’s decision under the disputes resolution provision of the contract did not constitute a final and binding arbitration award.

Appeal of M.A. Mortenson Company
No. 53761, 2006 ASBCA LEXIS 4 (ASBCA Jan. 26, 2006)
Appeal of M.A. Mortenson Company, No. 53761, 2006 ASBCA LEXIS 4 (ASBCA Jan. 26, 2006) held that the Severin doctrine did not prevent the prime contractor’s claims on behalf of its subcontractor where (1) there was contemporaneous evidence that the subcontractor expressed an intention to seek compensation in addition to amounts afforded via change order and (2) the prime contractor did not contend that such a claim was barred by the language of the change order.

Beckwith Machinery Company v. Asset Recovery Group, Inc.
2005 Pa. Super. 429, 2005 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4276 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005)
In Beckwith Machinery Company v. Asset Recovery Group, Inc., et al., 2005 Pa. Super. 429 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005), the Court held that invoices for major repairs in the nature of capital improvements to heavy construction equipment were not covered by the terms of a payment bond. The Court reasoned that the repairs referenced in the invoices at issue could not be classified as ordinary maintenance performed for consumption over the course of the project, but rather were services which a contractor would retain the benefit of on the completion of work to be used by him in a like manner on subsequent projects.

Webber v. McBride & Sons Contracting Co.
No. ED86076, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1846 (Mo. Ct. App. Dec. 13, 2005)
A painter suffered personal injuries after falling through a stairwell hole in the floor of an unfinished single-family residence. The stairwell hole had been cut by predecessor subcontractors no longer on the site. At the time of the fall, the general contractor, which also owned the residence, had already accepted the work of the subcontractors as completed.

LBL Skysystems (USA), Inc. v. APG-America, Inc.
No. 02-5379, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19065 (E.D.Pa. Aug. 31, 2005)
In LBL Skysystems (USA), Inc. v. APG-America, Inc., No. 02-5379, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19065 (E.D.Pa. Aug. 31, 2005), the District Court concluded that a subcontractor was contractually obligated to continue performance, despite its dispute with the contractor over alleged extra work. Further, the Court concluded that the subcontractor was in the wrong, as its course of performance demonstrated that certain steel work was, in fact, within the subcontractor’s original work scope. As a result, the Court concluded that the contractor’s decision to terminate the subcontract was proper.

Daniel Marr & Son Co. v. Coreslab Structures, Inc. et al.
No. 03-1880, 2005 Mass. Super. LEXIS 545, (Mass. Supp. Nov. 21, 2005)
In Daniel Marr & Son Co. v. Coreslab Structures, Inc. et al., No. 03-1880, 2005 Mass. Super. LEXIS 545, (Mass. Supp. Nov. 21, 2005), plaintiff sub-subcontractor sued defendant subcontractor for various breaches of contract related to the construction and erection of precast concrete panels. The original scope of work dictated the erection of the precast panels would proceed on a floor-by-floor basis. During the project, the defendant order plaintiff to alter the erection sequence, requiring plaintiff to install the precast panels on an as-directed basis. Plaintiff subsequently asserted a claim for productivity inefficiencies related to the revised sequence and other issues. Defendant attacked Plaintiff’s damages calculations as an “unsegregated partial total cost claim.”

Richard F. Kline, Inc. v. Shook Excavating & Hauling, Inc.
165 Md. App. 262, 885 A.2d 381, 2005 Md. App. LEXIS 273 (Maryland Ct Spec. App., October 31, 2005)
Richard F. Kline, Inc. (“Kline”) contracted with the City of Frederick, Maryland (the “City”) for the construction of a flood control project. Kline subcontracted with Shook Excavating & Hauling, Inc. (“Shook”) to perform a portion of the excavation work. The subcontract did not contemplate Shook’s removal of any contaminated soils. When such soils were discovered, the City and project engineer directed Kline to begin remediation. Kline in turn requested that Shook perform this work, and Shook did so. Eventually, the Maryland Department of the Environment determined that the soils were not in fact contaminated. Disagreeing with this determination, however, Kline and Shook continued to remediate the soil before using it as backfill.

Environmental Energy Partners Inc. v. Siemens Building Technologies,Inc., et al.
Nos. 26521 & 26702, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1568 (Mo. Ct. App., Oct. 25, 2005)
In Environmental Energy Partners Inc. v. Siemens Building Technologies, Inc., et al., Nos. 26521 & 26702, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1568, a payment dispute arose between a contractor and its subcontractor on a hospital renovation project. When the contractor refused to pay the subcontractor the remaining subcontract balance ($201,178.75) on the basis that the subcontractor’s work was not completed, the subcontractor filed a mechanic’s lien against the property. The subcontractor then filed a petition to enforce its lien, naming the contractor and owner as defendants. Because of the subcontractor’s lien, the owner withheld the last installment payment of $148,475 due to the contractor under their agreement. Thereafter, and unbeknownst to the contractor, the subcontractor and the owner entered into a confidential “Settlement Agreement and Release” under which the owner agreed to pay directly to the subcontractor the $148,475 amount that it was withholding from the general contractor in exchange for a release of the lien upon entry of judgment in the litigation.