Subcontract

Subscribe to Subcontract via RSS

Daniel Marr & Son Co. v. Coreslab Structures, Inc. et al.
No. 03-1880, 2005 Mass. Super. LEXIS 545, (Mass. Supp. Nov. 21, 2005)
In Daniel Marr & Son Co. v. Coreslab Structures, Inc. et al., No. 03-1880, 2005 Mass. Super. LEXIS 545, (Mass. Supp. Nov. 21, 2005), plaintiff sub-subcontractor sued defendant subcontractor for various breaches of contract related to the construction and erection of precast concrete panels. The original scope of work dictated the erection of the precast panels would proceed on a floor-by-floor basis. During the project, the defendant order plaintiff to alter the erection sequence, requiring plaintiff to install the precast panels on an as-directed basis. Plaintiff subsequently asserted a claim for productivity inefficiencies related to the revised sequence and other issues. Defendant attacked Plaintiff’s damages calculations as an “unsegregated partial total cost claim.”

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.

American Rock Mechanics, Inc. v. N. Abbonizio Contractors, Inc. and Fidelity and Deposit Company of
2005 PA Super 390; 2005 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4086 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005)
In American Rock Mechanics, Inc. v. N. Abbonizio Contractors, Inc. and Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, 2005 Pa. Super. 390, (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005), the Court held that the terms of the parties’ subcontract concerning time for payment took precedence over the those set forth in the Commonwealth Procurement Code, 62 Pa.C.S. § 3933.

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.

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.

Trumbull Corp. v. Boss Constr., Inc. et al.
768 A.2d 369 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001)
The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (“PennDot”) entered into a contract with A&L, Inc. (“A&L”) pursuant to which A&L agreed to serve as general contractor for a road resurfacing project. A&L obtained a labor and material payment bond from Safeco Insurance Company of America (“Safeco”). A&L also retained Boss Construction, Inc. (“Boss”) to serve as subcontractor for a portion of the work.

Travelers Cas. and Sur. Co. of Am. v. Colonial Sch. Dist. et. al.
No. 18167, 2001 Del. Ch. LEXIS 31 (Del. Ch. Mar. 16, 2001)
Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America (“Travelers”) served as surety of contractor Healy Management Services, Inc. (“Healy”) on a project for the Colonial School District (“Colonial”). Traveler’s also served as surety of Healy on a project for Electra Arms Senior Associates, L.P. (“Electra Arms”). Casey Electric, Inc. (“Casey”) and I.D. Griffith, Inc. (“Griffith”) were subcontractors of Healy on separate unbonded projects, unrelated to the projects which were bonded by Travelers.