law law law

Subscribe to law law law via RSS

Aquatherm, LLC v. CentiMark Corp, 2019 BL 13240 (D. Utah Apr. 12, 2019)

Stag II Lindon LLC and Stag Industrial Inc. (collectively “Stag”) owned a building in Lindon, Utah.  Stag contracted with CentiMark Corp. (“CentiMark”) to perform work on the building’s roof.  CentiMark’s work required it to manipulate, move, and reinstall existing heating cables on the roof.  Shortly after completion of the work, in March of 2014, a fire occurred on the roof which was traced to the location of heat tape, which CentiMark had removed and replaced.

EnerQuest Oil & Gas, L.L.C. v. Antero Resources Corporation, No. 02-18-000178CV, 2019 BL 130860 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth Apr. 11, 2019)

A Texas appellate court recently found that an out-of-state Oklahoma-based limited liability company was not subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets claims.

Westfield Ins. Co. v. Weaver Cooke Constr., LLC, 2019 BL 129431 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 11, 2019)

This case arises out of the alleged defective construction of a condominium complex in North Carolina.  In 2009, the developer on the project filed suit for the alleged construction defects.  This related coverage lawsuit then ensued between the parties’ insurers regarding a duty to defend the general contractor.

Whiting-Turner Contracting Co. v Guar. Co. of N. Am. USA, 2019 BL 97923 (Colo. App. Mar. 21, 2019).

This construction dispute involved rights and obligations under a performance bond supplied for an office building construction project in Denver, Colorado.  Whiting-Turner Contracting Company was the general contractor, and it subcontracted Klempco Construction to construct an anchor system for the project’s underground parking garage.  Klempco provided performance and payment bonds for the project from Guarantee Company of North America USA (“GCNA”).  When Klempco fell behind schedule, it stopped paying its sub-subcontractors and directed Whiting-Turner to assume responsibility for its work and sub-subcontractors.

Team Contractors, LLC v. Waypoint Nola, LLC, No. 16-1131, 2019 BL 96133 (E.D. La. Mar. 20, 2019)

The Eastern District of Louisiana recently denied the motion of a prime contractor (the “Contractor”) for summary judgment on its breach of contract claim against the owner (the “Owner”) of a construction project in New Orleans (the “Project”) where the primary issue involved whether a suspensive condition was enforceable.

SMJ Gen. Constr., Inc. v. Jet Commer. Constr., LLC, No. S-16785/16985, 2019 BL 131640 (Alaska Apr. 12, 2019)

In 2016, Jet Commercial Construction, LLC (“Jet”) entered into a subcontract with SMJ General Construction, Inc. (“SMJ”) to supply materials and labor for the construction of a restaurant in Hawaii.  The subcontract contained a dispute resolution provision that required the parties to first mediate any dispute and then submit it to arbitration if mediation was unsuccessful.  It also included a choice-of-law and venue provision designating Oklahoma Law and the courts of Cleveland County, Oklahoma for any lawsuits pertaining to the Agreement’s enforcement.

R&O Constr. Co. v. MBA Gen. Contracting, LLC, No. 1:18-cv-00042, 2019 BL 98680 (D. Utah Mar. 21, 2019)

On March 21, 2019, a Utah federal court granted Defendants MBA General Contracting, LLC and Cory Martin’s motion to dismiss R&O Construction Company’s claim for attorney fees.
R&O, as general contractor of a construction project, entered into two subcontracts with MBA to perform concrete work.  The first subcontract, entitled Master Subcontract Agreement, outlined general obligations between the parties.  The second, entitled Work Authorization Document, outlined more specific obligations.  R&O asserted various causes of action against MBA arising from MBA’s alleged breach of the subcontracts, including a claim for attorney fees.  MBA moved to dismiss the attorney fees claim, arguing that neither subcontract provides for such an award.

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v. Ohio Valley Coal Co., 2019 BL 99544 (Ohio Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2019)

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (“Columbia”) operated a high-pressure gas pipeline.  A portion of pipeline crossed land for which Ohio Valley Coal Company (“OVC”) and Consolidated Land Company (“Consolidated”) held interest rights in the underlying coal.  Columbia undertook measures to protect its pipeline from subsidence damage that OVC’s subterranean coal mining was certain to cause.  An Ohio appellate court held that OVC and Consolidated were liable to Columbia for those preventative measures.