L.P.

Subscribe to L.P. via RSS

SAK Construction of CA, L.P. v. PSC Industrial Outsourcing, L.P.
2012 U.S. Dist LEXIS 123473 (E.D. Mo. 2012)

This action arose out of the Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant Interceptor Project in Los Angeles County, California. General Contractor, SAK Construction of CA, L.P. (“SAK”) was retained by the County to perform sewer rehabilitation work. SAK subcontracted with PSC Industrial Outsourcing, L.P. (“PSC”) to perform the inspection, cleaning, waste removal and disposal work on the Project. The Project consisted of rehabilitating 16 stretches or “shots” of pipeline.

Mastec North America, Inc. v. El Paso Field Services, L.P.
2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 3436 (Tex. App. May 6, 2010)

The Court of Appeals of Texas recently held that when a contract places the risk of differing site conditions on the contractor, the contractor is not required to bear the risk “that the bid documents misrepresent the nature and amount of the work to be performed.”

The matter involved replacement of a pipeline that extended from Houston to Corpus Christi. Defendant El Paso contracted with Plaintiff MasTec, for the replacement work.

Harris Constr. Co., Ltd. v. GGP-Bridgeland, L.P.
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46477 (S.D. Tex. May 12, 2010)

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas determined that the issue whether the Texas Supreme Court would recognize a claim for breach of implied warranty against an owner or a design professional providing defective plans had been resolved by the Fifth Circuit in Interstate Contracting Corp. v. City of Dallas, 407 F.3d 708 (5th Cir. 2005). The Court concluded that the Texas would apply the Lonergan rule, which requires contractual language indicating an intent to shift the burden of risk of defective design to the owner or a design professional hired by the owner to make the plans and specifications.

Carll v. Terminex Int’l. Co., L.P.
2002 PA Super 44; 793 A.2d 921; 2002 Pa. Super. LEXIS 183 (2002)
The Carlls (“Plaintiffs”) instituted an action against Terminex International Company (“Terminex”) and other entities (collectively the “Defendants”), claiming that they sustained severe and permanent injuries as a result of Terminix’s negligent application of pesticides in and around their home. The Defendants responded with a petition to compel arbitration of the matter in accordance with the arbitration provisions of the contract at issue.