delay

Subscribe to delay

Quality Trust Inc. v. Cajun Contractors, Inc.
2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 25431 (D. Kan. 2007)
The District Court granted the prime contractor summary judgment on its right to terminate a subcontractor for failure to provide submittals and sufficient work force, while at the same time holding that the contractor was not entitled to summary judgment on the subcontractor’s claims for delay damages and contract balances.
Prime contractor, Cajun Contractors, Inc. (“Cajun”), entered into a general contract with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (“COE”) for the construction of a wastewater facility at Fort Riley, Kansas. The project entailed the partial demolition of an existing facility and the construction of a new facility. Cajun subcontracted with Quality Trust, Inc. (“QTI”) to erect eight metal buildings as part of the new facility. Under the subcontract, Cajun was to construct the concrete building pads, to procure the buildings through a third party supplier, and to provide the buildings for QTI to erect and finish.
Continue Reading Prime Contractor Wins Summary Judgment Upholding Right to Terminate Subcontractor For Failure To Provide Submittals And Sufficient Work Force

Scandale Associated Builders & Engineers, Ltd. v. Bell Justice Facilities Corp.
No. 4:03-CV-1773, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25112 (M.D. Pa. April 4, 2007)
In January 2001, Scandale Associated Builders & Engineers, Ltd. (“Scandale”) entered into a subcontract (“Subcontract”) with Bell Justice Facilities Corporation (“Bell”) for work on the construction of the U.S. Penitentiary/Federal Prison Camp at Canaan, Pennsylvania (“Prison”). The Subcontract required Scandale to perform cast-in-place concrete work on the Prison. Bell was the general contractor and the United States through the Federal Bureau of Prisons was the Owner.
Continue Reading Contractor’s Insistence That Subcontractor Execute Release Not Required By Subcontract As Condition To Final Payment Permits Imposition Of Penalty Interest Under Pennsylvania Contractors And Subcontractors Payment Act

RDP Royal Palm Hotel, L.P. v. Clark Construction Group
Nos. 04-16203 and 05-11713, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 3815 (11th Cir. Feb. 17, 2006)
RDP Royal Palm Hotel, L.P. v. Clark Construction Group, Nos. 04-16203 and 05-11713, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 3815 (11th Cir. Feb. 17, 2006) held that an Owner could not enforce the substantial completion date where the Owner continued to issue change orders and construction change directives after this date had passed. As a result of this waiver, the court further held that the Owner could not hold the Contractor liable for any damages incurred by the Owner as a result of the failure to achieve substantial completion by the substantial completion date.
Continue Reading Owner Waives “Time Is Of The Essence” Provision Of The Contract And Right To Delay Damages Where It Continued To Issue Change Orders And Construction Change Directives After The Substantial Completion Date Had Passed

Allgood Electric Co. v. Martin K. Eby Constr. Co.,
85 F.3d 1547, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 15252 (11th Cir. June 25, 1996)
Under Georgia law, subcontractor’s release of all claims against property on which project was located did not operate to release claims against contractor, nor was contractor entitled to benefit of release in which contractor was not mentioned by name.
Plaintiff Allgood Electric Company (“Allgood”) was the electrical subcontractor on a prison project for the Georgia Building Authority (“GBA”). Defendant Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc. (“Eby”) was the general contractor. Allgood sought to recover increased costs allegedly caused by Eby’s failure to coordinate various aspects of the project. Allgood also claimed entitlement to retainage.
Continue Reading Eleventh Circuit reverses grant of summary judgment in favor of contractor on basis of releases executed by subcontractor.

Kingston Constructors, Inc. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority,
1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8427 (D.D.C. June 6, 1996)
Corps of Engineers Board of Contract Appeals erred in reducing amount of contractual liquidated damages from $1000 to $500 per day; Board should have declared provision unenforceable and awarded actual damages. 
The defendant Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (“WMATA”) contracted with plaintiff Kingston Contractors, Inc. (“Kingston”) to remove and destroy existing electrical transformers in WMATA’s rapid transit rail system, and procure and install replacement transformers. The contract contained a liquidated damages provision which provided for $1000 for each calendar day of delay beyond a specified completion date.
Continue Reading District Court for District of Columbia Declares Liquidated Damages Clause Unenforceable

Cleveland Constr., Inc. v. Reynoldsburg City Schools,
1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 2751 (June 28, 1996)
No-damage-for-delay clause in contract is not enforceable if the extent and magnitude of the delay was unforeseeable at the time the contract was executed and, therefore, summary judgment was improperly granted where question of material fact existed concerning the foreseeability of the delay.
Cleveland Construction, Inc. (“Contractor”) entered into a contract with the Reynoldsburg City Schools (“Owner”) for the construction of several projects. The contract provided that the Contractor would begin its work in May 1993 and complete its work ten months later, by February 1994. The Contractor, however, was delayed for two months in beginning the project, was further delayed as a result of difficulties experienced by another of the Owner’s contractors, and was at one point required to temporarily abandon its work and return to the project at a later time. In the end, the originally contemplated ten-month project became an eighteen-month project.
Continue Reading Ohio Court of Appeals reverses summary judgment; question of material fact existed as to whether Owner could enforce no-damage-for delay clause against Contractor.