subcontractor

Subscribe to subcontractor via RSS

Village of Sturtevant v. STS Consultants, Ltd.
2010 Wisc. App. LEXIS 433 (Wis. Ct. App. June 9, 2010)

The Court of Appeals of Wisconsin recently considered whether a design professional could maintain a claim for contribution against a subcontractor on the basis that the subcontractor had a duty to advise that the design was not suited for the intended application. The Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s dismissal of such claims on the basis that the subcontractor had no design or construction responsibility and therefore could not be a joint tortfeasor.

Centex/Vestal J.V. v. Friendship West Baptist Church
2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 4346 (Tex. App. June 10, 2010)

The trial court denied a motion to confirm an arbitration award and granted a motion to vacate finding that the arbitrator exceeded his authority when he determined the validity of and awarded the general contractor damages on its pass through subcontractor claims. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that because of the breadth of the arbitration clause, the arbitrator was authorized to determine the pass through subcontractor claims, and entered an order confirming the arbitrator’s award.

Acme Contracting, Ltd. v. Toltest, Inc.
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 6144 (6th Cir. Mar. 24, 2010)

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a District Court decision that a “no damage for delay” clause was void and unenforceable pursuant to Section 4113.62 of the Ohio Revised Code. The clause contained provisions requiring that any “delay must be reported in writing and an extension of time shall be the sole and exclusive remedy of Contractor for any such delays or suspensions, but only to the extent that a time extension is obtained from the Owner,” and that “no claims will be accepted for costs incurred due to delays caused by others except to the extent that such delays exceed four (4) months.”

Raito, Inc. v. Cardi Corp.
2010 R.I. Super LEXIS 61 (R.I. Super. April 10, 2010)

Cardi contracted with the State of Rhode Island for the construction of a new bridge over the Providence River on Interstate I-95. Cardi subcontracted with Raito to install a series of concrete foundation shafts for the bridge. With regard to the subcontract, Raito, as principal, and Western Surety Company, as surety, executed a standard AIA A312 performance bond.

Charter Foods Inc. v. Derek Engineering of Ohio, Inc.
2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 115477 (E.D. KY. Dec. 11, 2009)

The District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky held that a general contractor, who had performed excavation work on a site in accordance with the plans and specifications, could not be held liable for breach of contract as a matter of law, but could potentially be held liable to the owner for negligence if the contractor breached the duty of care it owed the owner.

U.S. ex rel Pioneer Construction v. Pride Enterprises
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110935 (M.D. Pa., November 27, 2009)

The court denied the contractor’s claim for summary judgment, which was based on the theory that the subcontractor’s claims were barred by the releases it submitted with partial payment requests, holding that the contractor’s submission of the subcontractor’s claims to the government as part of an equitable adjustment request supported an inference that the parties by course of performance did not regard the releases as barring the claims. Further, the court held that notwithstanding Pennsylvania law to the contrary, federal law allows recovery of delay costs under a Miller Act payment bond.

Metric Constructors, Inc. v. Hawker Siddeley Power Engineering, Inc. and Panda Rosemary Corp.,
468 S.E. 2d 435 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996).
Defendant Hawker Siddeley Power Engineering, Inc. (HSPE) was the Design/Build contractor on a co-generation power plant in Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina. As the general contractor, HSPE subcontracted with plaintiff Metric Constructors, Inc. (Metric) for construction of the power plant. In turn, Metric subcontracted with a wholly-owned subsidiary, Electrical and Special Systems, Inc. (ESSI) for specialized work. Because all of the designs for the plant prior to the commencement of construction were not complete, the project was deemed “Fast Track.”
Pursuant to its contract with Metric, HSPE was responsible for engineering design drawings and procurement of major equipment items. The contract had an inflexible completion date of October 30, 1990 and, in contract negotiations and in the contract, HSPE promised to issue drawings at a pace that would allow Metric to finish its work on time. The contract further provided that Metric would receive a bonus of $9,000 per day for early completion.