breach of contract

Subscribe to breach of contract via RSS

GEM Industrial, Inc. v. Sun Trust Bank
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31042 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 31, 2010)

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied a contractor’s claims against a project’s lenders, where the contractor’s claims were based on the lender’s representations that the contractor would be paid.

GEM Industrial was the mechanical contractor for the construction of an ethanol production plant owned by GOE Lima, LLC. Due to budget overruns and cash flow problems, GOE fell behind on monthly payments to GEM. Eventually, GOE requested that GEM enter into a formal payment deferral. Before agreeing to the deferral, GEM asked to meet with representatives of the project’s debt and equity investors, SunTrust Bank and Paladin Homeland Security Fund, LP and Paladin Capital Group, LLC to confirm that sources of funding were available to pay construction costs. GEM asserts that, during its calls with SunTrust and Paladin, representatives for both entities promised and assured GEM that it would be paid for both its already completed work and its work going forward on the plant. After its calls with SunTrust and Paladin, GEM agreed to the payment deferral and continued to perform its mechanical work at the plant.

Excel Construction, Inc. v. HKM Engineering, Inc.
2010 WY 34 (Wyo. Mar. 23, 2010)

The Supreme Court of Wyoming recently reexamined its prior ruling barring a contractor’s assertion of negligence claims against design professionals economic loss rule.

The case pertained to a construction project for the replacement and improvement of water and sewer lines in the Town of Lovell, Wyoming. The Town of Lovell entered into an engineering services agreement with HKM Engineering, Inc. The Town also entered into a construction agreement with Excel Construction, Inc. No contract existed between HKM and Excel.

DuBaldo Electric, LLC v. Montagno Construction, Inc.
119 Conn. App. 423; 2010 Conn. App. LEXIS 55 (Conn. App. Feb. 23, 2010)

Subcontractor, DuBaldo Electric contracted with general contractor, Montagno Construction to perform electrical work in connection with the renovation of retail space leased by Burlington Coat Factory.
DuBaldo had estimated that it could complete the work in 3200 man hours over the scheduled ten week period. Issuance of the permit required for DuBaldo to commence its electrical work was delayed three weeks due to deficiencies in Burlington’s architectural design and understaffing at the City electrical inspector’s office. Unable to perform the electrical work without a permit, DuBaldo fell approximately three weeks behind. Nevertheless, Montagno refused to update the schedule. To make up for lost time, DuBaldo agreed to work 7 days a week with overtime. In addition, Montagno hired Globe Electric to work along side DuBaldo, and deducted from DuBaldo’s account the amount it paid to Globe for work performed within DuBaldo’s scope.

Boro Construction, Inc. v. Ridley School Dist.
2010 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 124 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Mar. 8, 2010)

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled that where a contractor failed to submit an application for final payment, a school district was excused from its duty to tender final payment. At the same time, the Court held that the school district was not entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to language in the contract’s no damage for delay clause because the clause specifically stated that the contractor was only required to reimburse the agency if it “loses [the] litigation,” and in this case, the contractor defeated some of the agency’s counterclaims.

Dew Electric, Inc. v. Mass Electric Construction Co.
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19904 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 5, 2010)

Defendant Mass-Aldridge, a Joint Venture, (“MAJV”) entered into two contracts with the Charlotte Area Transit System (“CATS”) to construct CATS’ new South Corridor Light Rail Project. Under the first contract, MAJV agreed to construct the Traction Power & Overland Catenary System and under the second contract, MAJV agreed to construct the Train Control & Communication system (collectively the “Prime Contracts”). In furtherance of its work under the Prime Contracts, MAJV entered into a subcontract for each project (collectively the “Subcontracts”) with Plaintiff Dew Electric, Inc. (“Dew”).

Flagstaff Affordable Housing LP v. Design Alliance, Inc.
223 P.3d 664, 2010 Ariz. LEXIS 11 (Ariz. Feb. 12, 2010)

In 1995, the Owner of a low income housing project, Flagstaff Affordable Housing Limited Partnership contracted with Design Alliance, Inc. (“Architect”) for the design of the Project. The design had to comply with the Federal Fair Housing Act’s (“FFHA”)accessibility guidelines. The Owner also contracted with Butte Construction Company (“Contractor”) for the construction of the apartments. The Project was completed in 1996.

Universal Concrete Products Corp. v. Turner Construction Co.
595 F.3d 527 (4th Cir. Feb. 19, 2010)

Universal Concrete Products Corp. (“Universal”) sued Turner Construction Co. (“Turner”) for breach of contract and several other claims seeking payment for $885,507 worth of precast concrete work Universal had completed at the Granby Tower construction project in Norfolk, Virginia (“Project”).

Universal had entered into a written subcontract with Turner for the installation of precast concrete at the Project. Turner had a prime contract with the project owner’s to provide general construction work on the Project. The Project fell through in March 2008 when the owner could no longer finance it. By that point, however, Universal had already substantially completed all of its work at the Project. Turner, however, had not paid Universal for any of the work performed because Turner had not yet been paid by the owner. When Universal sought payment from Turner for the work performed, Turner refused citing a pay-when-paid provision in the subcontract.

American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Payton Lane Nursing Home, Inc.
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8537 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2010)

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (“EDNY”) recently considered whether a surety could maintain a breach of contract claim against a construction project owner’s architect based upon the architect’s alleged wrongful certification of payments occurring prior to the execution of a takeover agreement. In rendering its opinion, the EDNY concluded that expert opinions were not required where the claim sounded in contract, rather than in tort. The EDNY also found that summary judgment was defeated because there remained genuine issues of material fact as to the extent of the architect’s scope of construction phase services and whether the architect failed to satisfy its construction phase service obligations.

Hunt Construction Group, Inc. v. National Wrecking Corporation
587 F.3d 1119; 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 25909 (2009)

Plaintiff, Hunt Construction Group (“Hunt”), commenced an action against one of its subcontractors, National Wrecking Corporation (“National”) and against two sureties (the “Sureties”) on National’s performance bond. The Sureties argued that Hunt failed to give timely notice of default depriving the Sureties of a realistic opportunity to exercise their rights under the bond to cure National’s defective performance.

Charter Foods Inc. v. Derek Engineering of Ohio, Inc.
2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 115477 (E.D. KY. Dec. 11, 2009)

The District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky held that a general contractor, who had performed excavation work on a site in accordance with the plans and specifications, could not be held liable for breach of contract as a matter of law, but could potentially be held liable to the owner for negligence if the contractor breached the duty of care it owed the owner.