Associated Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. Martin K. Eby Constr. Co., Inc.
No. 00-10784, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 24235 (11th Cir. Nov. 9, 2001)
Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc. (“Eby”) was the prime contractor on a Georgia prison construction project. Eby entered into subcontract with Associated Mechanical Contractors, Inc. (“Associated”) pursuant to which Associated agreed to perform the mechanical, heating, ventilation, air-conditioning, and plumbing work for the project.

Trumbull Corp. v. Boss Constr., Inc. et al.
768 A.2d 369 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001)
The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (“PennDot”) entered into a contract with A&L, Inc. (“A&L”) pursuant to which A&L agreed to serve as general contractor for a road resurfacing project. A&L obtained a labor and material payment bond from Safeco Insurance Company of America (“Safeco”). A&L also retained Boss Construction, Inc. (“Boss”) to serve as subcontractor for a portion of the work.

Travelers Cas. and Sur. Co. of Am. v. Colonial Sch. Dist. et. al.
No. 18167, 2001 Del. Ch. LEXIS 31 (Del. Ch. Mar. 16, 2001)
Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America (“Travelers”) served as surety of contractor Healy Management Services, Inc. (“Healy”) on a project for the Colonial School District (“Colonial”). Traveler’s also served as surety of Healy on a project for Electra Arms Senior Associates, L.P. (“Electra Arms”). Casey Electric, Inc. (“Casey”) and I.D. Griffith, Inc. (“Griffith”) were subcontractors of Healy on separate unbonded projects, unrelated to the projects which were bonded by Travelers.

Eastern Steel Constructors, Inc. v. The City of Salem
209 W.Va. 392, 549 S.E.2d 266 (2001)
The City of Salem entered into a contract with Kanakanui Associates (“Kanakanui”) pursuant to which Kanakanui agreed to provide engineering and architectural services for improvements to Salem’s existing sewer system. Kanakanui prepared the plans and specifications for the Project. Relying on these plans and specifications, Eastern Constructors, Inc. (“Eastern”) submitted a bid to construct one of the sewer lines planned as part of the improvements. Eastern’s bid was accepted, and it was awarded the contract.

Ingrassia Constr. Co., Inc. v. Vernon Township Bd. of Educ.
No. A-3954-00T2F, 2001 N.J. Super. LEXIS 411 (N.J. Super. App. Div. Nov. 8, 2001)
Ingrassia Construction Co., Inc. (“Ingrassia”) entered into a contract with the Vernon Township Board of Education (“Board”) pursuant to which Ingrassia agreed to perform renovations of and additions to the Vernon Township High School. Ingrassia’s performance of its work scope was subject to several milestone dates. Despite this obligation, Ingrassia consistently failed to perform in accordance with the project schedule.

Polydyne, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia
No. 2454 C.D. 2001 (Pa. Commw. Ct. April 4, 2002)
The City of Philadelphia solicited bids for the provision of polymers for use by the City Water Department. Cytec Industries, Inc. (“Cytec”) was the successful bidder. Polydyne, Inc. (“Polydyne”), a disappointed bidder, filed a claim against the City of Philadelphia, seeking to enjoin the award to Cytec. After review of the merits, the trial court rejected the request for equitable relief.

SME Indus., Inc. v. Thompson, Ventulett, Stainback & Assocs., Inc.
C.A. No. 990869, 2001 Utah LEXIS 90 (June 26, 2001)
In SME Indus., Inc. v. Thompson, Ventulett, Stainback & Assocs., Inc., the Supreme Court of Utah addressed the ability to assign of claims for damages for breach of contract to a party who is not in privity with the alleged wrongdoer. That court determined that summary judgment was inappropriate because it was ambiguous whether the parties intended to include the assignment of causes of action under a “no assignment” clause. Id. at *16.

Wausau Business Insurance Company v. Turner Construction Company
No. 99 Civ. 0682 (RWS), 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5821(SDNY May 9, 2001)
Turner Construction Company (“Construction Manager”) entered into a written agreement with Central Synagogue (the “Owner”) to provide construction management services in connection with renovations of the Central Synagogue Sanctuary (the “Agreement”). The Agreement provided that the Owner would “defend, indemnify and hold the Construction Manager harmless from claims arising out of the acts or omissions on the part of the architects, engineers, attorneys or contractors.” However, the Agreement qualified this obligation by stating that “it is understood and agreed that the Construction Manager shall be liable to the Owner . . . and shall indemnify Owner against Loss, liability, damages, costs and expenses . . . for any negligence or willful misconduct of Construction Manager . . . which results in any loss, claim or injury to the Owner, its successors or assigns.” The Agreement also provided that “Owner shall name the Construction Manager an additional insured party or cause its Contractors to so name the Construction Manager an additional insured party on the Contractors’ insurances.” The Owner opted for the latter, and the Construction Manager was named an additional insured on the contractors’ policies.

BAE Automated Sys., Inc. v. Morse Diesel Int’l, Inc.
01 Civ. 0217 (SAS), 2001 U.S. Dist. Lexis 6682 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2001)
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted an order staying all proceedings in a construction dispute pending resolution by a dispute resolution board (“DRB”) in this case. This case involved a breach of contract claim brought by BAE Automated Systems, Inc. (“BAE”), a baggage handling subcontractor, against AMEC Construction Management, Inc. (“AMEC”), the construction manager of a project to build a new terminal at John F. Kennedy International Airport (the “Project”). AMEC then brought a third-party claim against the owner of the Project, Terminal One Group Association (“TOGA”).

McCandlish Electric, Inc. v. Will Construction Co.
No. 18935-0-III, 2001 Wash. App. LEXIS 1364 (June 28, 2001)
Will Construction Co. (“Will”) was awarded a contract from the City of Leavenworth for renovations to a wastewater treatment plant. In its successful bid, Will had used a bid from McCandlish Electric, Inc. (“McCandlish”) submitted for the electrical subcontract. Will also listed McCandlish, pursuant to contract, as the electrical subcontractor in its bid submission to the City.