184 results for 'cat:"Construction" AND cat:"Contract"'.
J. Barker denies the construction company's motion to dismiss, ruling that even if the court takes the owner at her word and assumes she was not served, her continued and active participation in this lawsuit over the past 18 months waives any failure of service argument and gives this court jurisdiction over the bond owner's claims.
Court: USDC Northern District of Ohio, Judge: Barker, Filed On: September 26, 2023, Case #: 1:21cv593, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: construction, Jurisdiction, contract
J. Kendall grants the defendant insurance company's motion for summary judgment, and denies the plaintiff insurance company's cross-motion for summary judgment, over who has a duty to defend a construction company in an underlying contract suit. The court finds the defendant insurance company has no such duty to defend.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Kendall, Filed On: September 25, 2023, Case #: 1:20cv992, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: construction, Insurance, contract
J. Fox finds the lower court properly denied the architect's motion to enforce the accrual provision found in Colorado law for construction defects. The provision included in its contract with the school extended the accrual period and is enforceable because it does not violate public policy. The contract does not include an unlimited accrual period or any other language that violates any Colorado statute, and both parties are "sophisticated entities" that could have negotiated different terms for reporting of any defects. Affirmed.
Court: Colorado Court Of Appeals, Judge: Fox, Filed On: September 21, 2023, Case #: 2023COA85, Categories: Civil Procedure, construction, contract
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Sheehan upholds a jury finding for a contractor because even though written changes were never made to its contract with the homeowners when additional work became necessary to connect the home's septic system to the city sewer system, the owners never requested a quote for the additional work and told the contractor to "do what had to be done" to finish the job, which waived any challenge to the contract's "no oral modification clause." Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Sheehan, Filed On: September 21, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-3363, Categories: construction, contract
J. Hoyle finds that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment to the construction consultant in this breach of contract suit brought against the plumbing contractor. The consultant says that the contractor did not properly request arbitration. Though the contractor could have demanded a waiver more promptly, this does not establish that it substantially invoked the judicial process to the extent required to demonstrate a waiver of arbitration. Reversed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Hoyle , Filed On: September 20, 2023, Case #: 12-23-00009-CV, Categories: Arbitration, construction, contract
J. Sweet denies the contractor’s appeal of the Army Corps of Engineers’ request that it add a thicker polyurethane foam insulation to arch-span structures constructed at Camp Hero East, Afghanistan. The contract required that the foam limit flame-spread and smoke-development and have a thermal barrier, complying with International Building Code. The Corps did not direct the contractor to perform work not required under the contract, or enlarge its performance requirements, so there was no constructive change.
Court: Armed Services Board Of Contract Appeals, Judge: Sweet, Filed On: September 20, 2023, Case #: 62124, Categories: construction, Military, contract
J. Vitter denies a request by a construction company to dismiss claims of breaches by its estranged partner in a joint venture to obtain a public contract for a prison building project in New Orleans worth more than $144.9 million dollars. The former business partner has not met its burden of proving that the construction company’s legal claims have expired. The loans at issue in the suit are sufficiently intertwined with and dependent upon the underlying joint venture agreement such that the ruling finds that the litigation is one for breach of their agreement and not an “action on money lent.”
Court: USDC Eastern District of Louisiana , Judge: Vitter, Filed On: September 15, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv5323, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: construction, Government, contract
J. Watson partially denies an engineering company's motion to dismiss contract claims for design and construction work associated with a transit project. The engineering company properly alleged quantum meruit, detrimental reliance, and unjust enrichment claims, as the parties' agreement may allow alternatives to its breach of contract claims.
Court: USDC Hawaii, Judge: Watson, Filed On: September 15, 2023, Case #: 1:23cv279, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: construction, contract
J. Guidry, ruling on remand from the Fifth Circuit, grants summary judgment to two sued insurers and against a New Orleans hotel operator and its general contractor regarding the proper meaning of a phrase in an insurance policy. The insurers are correct: the applicable deductible for the hotel’s flood claim, calculated as 5% of the value of the renovation project at the time of the flood, with a minimum of $500,000, is $3,443,475. There are no genuine disputes of material fact as to this issue. The insurers are entitled to summary judgment .
Court: USDC Eastern District of Louisiana , Judge: Guidry, Filed On: September 14, 2023, Case #: 2:18cv1380, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: construction, Damages, contract
J. Stegner finds that the trial court properly compelled arbitration of a construction contract dispute. The builder did not waive its right to arbitration by first engaging in discovery and discussions about mediation. The right to seek arbitration is a contractual right subject to traditional contract interpretation, and the builder expressly preserved its right to arbitrate throughout the dispute. Affirmed.
Court: Idaho Supreme Court, Judge: Stegner, Filed On: September 8, 2023, Case #: 49637, Categories: Arbitration, construction, contract
J. Campbell grants a County's motion for summary judgment concerning a mining company's claims that it issued it a permit that contained outdated flow rates, and then refused to review a report completed by a hydrologist, which cost it upwards of $8 million for complying with "unnecessary stabilization demands." However, the County sufficiently showed that the claims are time-barred under the statute of limitations.
Court: USDC Arizona, Judge: Campbell, Filed On: August 24, 2023, Case #: 2:21cv1875, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: construction, Energy, contract
J. Wise finds that the trial court should not have granted summary judgment on the Prompt Payment Act (PPA) claim relating to a construction dispute. The evidence did not "conclusively establish when the payment was received by appellant for purposes of calculating interest under the PPA." Reversed in part.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Wise, Filed On: August 24, 2023, Case #: 14-22-00101-CV, Categories: construction, contract
J. Kovner enters judgment in favor of Liberty Mutual on its breach of contract claims, finding a general contractor and its principals liable for $665,084 in unpaid expenses the insurer incurred litigating various claims filed against their surety bonds, which were issued in connection with state-governed construction projects.
Court: USDC Eastern District of New York, Judge: Kovner, Filed On: August 21, 2023, Case #: 1:21cv5130, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: construction, Insurance, contract
[Consolidated.] J. Bright finds the trial court properly granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment on indemnification claims filed against the principal owners of a construction company. Although the insurer could have attempted to dismiss a lawsuit filed in New York by one of the subcontractors on the hotel project, it was not unreasonable to settle that suit and seek indemnification under the parties' surety agreement. Therefore, because the insurer provided evidence of losses, costs and expenses incurred in connection with the bonds used to finance the construction project, it was entitled to judgment on the indemnification claims. Affirmed.
Court: Connecticut Court Of Appeals, Judge: Bright, Filed On: August 18, 2023, Case #: AC44836, Categories: construction, Indemnification, contract
J. Gottschall denies a banking services company’s motion to dismiss a construction company’s breach of contract claims against it, but grants its motion to transfer the case to the District of Southern Texas. The court finds that is a more appropriate venue for this contract dispute, as that is where the construction company’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy case is pending.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Gottschall, Filed On: August 18, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv1449, NOS: Negotiable Instrument - Contract, Categories: Bankruptcy, construction, contract
[Consolidated.] J. Penzato finds that while the trial court properly ruled in favor of the prime contractor on its claim against the state agency involving a bridge repair project, it should have sided with the subcontractor on its claim against the prime contractor for money owed for stockpiled materials. The evidence does not support the agency's position that it overpaid the prime contractor and was entitled to "claw back" funds. Also, the prime contractor's argument that the subcontractor was not a "claimant" lacks merit since there was no "pay-if-paid provision" between the parties. Reversed in part.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Penzato, Filed On: August 16, 2023, Case #: 2022CA1301, Categories: construction, Government, contract
J. Boardman grants a group of insurance firms’ motion to strike a sheet metal company’s demand for a trial by jury after it was hired on as a subcontractor for a federal construction project. The subcontractor was hired on as a third-tier company to make and install mechanical duct work. After several years’ work, the company filed suit against the insurance group, as well as the first- and second-tier companies that hired it, to pursue payment for various increased expenses for which it has yet to be paid. It demands a trial by jury but signed an agreement that it would not pursue exactly that.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Boardman, Filed On: August 7, 2023, Case #: 8:22cv2789, NOS: Miller Act - Contract, Categories: construction, Jury, contract
J. Knepp grants the Australian construction company's motion to dismiss, ruling that the lack of a final judgment in the state court action between the general contractor and a subcontractor has not established liability and, therefore, the claims for indemnification are unripe.
Court: USDC Northern District of Ohio, Judge: Knepp, Filed On: August 3, 2023, Case #: 3:23cv11, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: construction, Indemnification, contract
J. Milazzo finds a Louisiana property owner was unjustly enriched by the amount of $35,909 by refusing to pay a Texas-based company for disaster recovery on his property. To date, the property owner has paid nothing. The property owner is bound to compensate the company for work done.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Louisiana , Judge: Milazzo, Filed On: July 31, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv1948, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: construction, Debt Collection, contract
J. Kelly finds a lower court properly dismissed contract claims brought by a energy company against a electric power cooperative. The energy company argued that is was entitled to cancel the parties' long-term power agreement. However, the electric power cooperative presented sufficient evidence in court that the energy company is not entitled to a buyout to withdraw from the project, based on an unambiguous agreement it signed to purchase electricity exclusively from it until 2075. Affirmed.
Court: 8th Circuit, Judge: Kelly, Filed On: July 28, 2023, Case #: 22--1884, Categories: construction, Interference With contract, contract