Inc.

Subscribe to Inc. via RSS

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.

Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. David A. Bramble, Inc.
388 Md. 195, 879 A.2d 101 (Md. July 21, 2005)
In connection with construction of a resort hotel project, general contractor Clark Construction provided a payment bond securing its obligation to pay its subcontractors for all labor, material, and equipment required. The bond was a standard American Institute of Architects document A312 form, used without alteration to the form language, issued jointly by three sureties. In the event claim was made against the bond, it provided that the surety would “Send an answer to the Claimant, with a copy to the Owner, within 45 days after receipt of the claim, stating the amounts that are undisputed and the basis for challenging any amounts that are disputed.”

Bernotas v. Super Fresh Food Markets, Inc.
863 A.2d 478, 2004 Pa. LEXIS 3238 (Dec. 22, 2004)
Barbara Bernotas sustained serious injuries when she fell into a hole at a construction area inside a Super Fresh store. Bernotas sued Super Fresh for her injuries. Super Fresh filed cross-claims against the general contractor, and its electrical subcontractor, seeking indemnity for any damages under those parties’ contracts. Bernotas settled for $200,000, with each defendant contributing 1/3 of the amount. The trial court then held a bench trial in which Super Fresh sought indemnity from the general contractor pursuant to the prime contract, and the general contractor in turn sought indemnity from its electrical subcontractor pursuant to their subcontract. The Supreme Court’s opinion addresses only the scope of the subcontractor’s indemnity obligations to the general contractor.

In re P.J. Dick, Inc.
2002 VA BCA LEXIS 2; 2002-1 B.C.A. (CCH) P31,732 (9/27/01)
The Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) awarded P.J. Dick, Inc. (“PJD”) a contract for the construction of a clinical addition to the Department of Veteran Affairs Medical Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan (the “Contract”). To complete its work under the Contract, PJD entered into a subcontract with Kent Electric Services (“KES”) pursuant to which KES agreed to perform all electrical work for the project for labor and material costs plus a $10,000 per month management fee.

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.

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.

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”).

Roberts & Schaefer Co. v. Merit Contracting, Inc.,
99 F.3d 248, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 28280 (U.S. Ct. of Appeals, 7th Cir.)
Contract between the parties contained an enforceable forum selection clause, even though the actual written agreement was signed by only one of the parties; therefore, suit brought in Illinois state court pursuant to the forum selection clause, was not removable to Federal Court.