Urban Masonry Corporation, Appellant, N&N Contractors, Inc., Appellee,
676 A.2d 26 (D.C. App. 1996)
In November 1990, Urban Masonry Corporation (Urban) subcontracted with N&N Contractors, Inc., (N&N) to install concrete panels on a major construction project in the District of Columbia. Urban was the subcontractor of the general contractor, Blake Construction Company, and N&N was a subcontractor of Urban. The panels were to be supplied by Blake.
Upon installation of the concrete panels it became obvious that the panels were smaller than anticipated, therefore, additional pieces would be needed to complete the project. Because this was beyond the scope of the original agreement, it was agreed between Urban and N&N, that Urban would pay additional compensation for installing extra panels. In fact, Urban’s Project Manager sent a “speed memo” affirming the compensation, and Urban’s President sent a letter acknowledging the request for compensation and promised to pass on the claim to the general contractor (Blake). Subsequently, Urban made a settlement with Blake which did not include compensation for N&N’s claims in November 1991.
Federal Claims Court Holds That A Variance In Estimated Quantities Clause Affords A Contractor Relief Only To The Extent That The Contractor Can Prove An Increase In Unit Costs Due Solely To Increased Quantities
ThermoCor, Inc. v. United States,
1996 U.S. Claims LEXIS 68 (Cl. Ct. 1996).
On October 16, 1989, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) awarded ThermoCor, Inc. (“ThermoCor”) a contract in the amount of $15,500,000 to excavate and treat soils contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCB’s”) in Erie County, New York. In part, the contract provided for estimated quantities, from which ThermoCor submitted a unit price bid. The contract also provided a Variance in Estimated Quantity Clause (“VEQ”), which provided, in pertinent part:
If the quantity of a unit-priced item in this contract is an estimated quantity and the actual quantity of the unit-priced item varies more than 15 percent above or below the estimated quantity, an equitable adjustment in the contract price shall be made upon demand of either party. The equitable adjustment shall be based upon any increase or decrease in costs due solely to the variation above 115 percent or below 85 percent of the estimated quantity. 48 C.F.R. [[section]] 52.212-11 (1989) (emphasis supplied).
Federal Claims Court Holds Contractor Required to Proceed with Disputed Corrective Work under Disputes Clause; Contractor Not Entitled to Advance Judicial Determination of Propriety of Directive under Federal Courts Administration Act of 1992
Valley View Enterprises, Inc. v. United States,
35 Fed. Cl. 378 (1996).
On September 22,1992, the Department of the Army awarded plaintiff Valley View Enterprises, Inc. (“Valley View”) a contract to replace seventeen steam lines located at the United States Military Academy in West Point, New York in connection with…
Appellate Court of Illinois Holds Engineer's Decision Is Reviewable in Cases of Clear Mistake Notwithstanding Provision That Engineer's Decision is Final
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…
Texas Court Holds That Subcontractor Has No Independent Tort Cause Of Action For General Contractor’s Breach of Duty of Good Faith And Fair Dealing
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…
Georgia Court Reverses Summary Judgment Against Contractor On Delay Damage Claim
APAC-Georgia, Inc. v. Department of Transportation,
1996 Ga. App. LEXIS 503 (Ga. Ct. App. May 13, 1996).
Contract provision requiring notice for claims based on extra work did not require such notice for delay claims based on failure to coordinate; issue of fact existed as to whether separate notice requirement…
Kentucky and Ohio Courts Hold That Damages Arising From A Subcontractor’s Defective Work Are Covered Under Prime Contractor’s CGL Insurance Policy With Broad Form Endorsement
Grange Mutual Casualty Co. v. Robert Locker Builder, Inc.; Panzica Constr. Co. v. Ohio Ins. Casualty
1996 Ky. App. LEXIS 8 (Ky. Ct. App., Jan. 19, 1996); 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 1975 (Ohio Ct. App., May 1
Provision in the standard broad form endorsement to comprehensive general liability insurance policy,…
Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Holds Contractor Was Entitled To Rely On Soil Boring Logs and Design Features in Contract Documents, Even Though General Description of Site Stated that Boulders Were Present
Kit-San-Azusa v. United States,
1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 10370 (Fed. Cir. Ct. App., May 7, 1996).
Government contractor’s differing site conditions claim based on the discovery of unanticipated boulders during excavation was upheld even though the Government’s general description of the site stated that cobbles and boulders were present at…
Missouri Court of Appeals Reverses Trial Court Decision That Subcontractor Could Claim Damages From a General Contractor Despite a "No Damages for Delay" Provision in the Subcontract Agreement
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…
Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit Holds That Government Did Not Waive Right to Terminate for Default Notwithstanding Contractor's Continued Performance After Contract Completion Date, Where Contractor Continued to Delay Not Despite Numerous Efforts by Government to Spur Completion
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…