Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service (RUS) made a $267 million loan to Open Range to finance construction of wireless broadband networks in 540 RUS-approved markets. Open Range subcontracted with G4S. The FCC suspended a permit, so that Open Range lost the spectrum rights necessary to operate the planned network. RUS gave notice of its intent to terminate remaining funds on the loan unless Open Range could obtain replacement rights. Open Range began failing to meet its obligations to subcontractors. The Secretary of Agriculture made loan money available, provided a press release, and offered to reassure subcontractors, but Open Range was unable to regain the full spectrum rights necessary to complete the original project. RUS and Open Range executed an amendment to reflect a loan amount reduced to $180 million, and 160 RUS-approved markets, but Open Range remained unable to satisfy its debts and filed for bankruptcy. G4S filed suit. The Claims Court held that G4S was not a third party beneficiary to the agreement. The Federal Circuit affirmed, stating that G4S asked that the government incur liability simply because it talked to the individuals in charge of a failing project in an attempt to fix the problems. View "G4S Tech., LLC v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2003, the VA entered into a contract with Reliable for electrical improvements at a VA medical center, requiring installation of three backup generators, “new and of the most suitable grade.” Federal Acquisition Regulation 52.211-5, incorporated by reference, requires that supplies be “new, reconditioned, or remanufactured,” and defines “new” as “composed of previously unused components.” Reliable sub-contracted to Fisk, which contracted with DTE. In 2004, DTE delivered two Cummins Power Generation generators to the construction site. The VA’s senior resident engineer inspected the generators and determined that they were not “new.” He wrote to Reliable, stating: They show a lot of wear and tear including field burns to enlarge mounting holes. Are they new and will you certify them as such? I cannot pay you … without that certification. Fisk and Reliable initially agreed that the generators did not meet the contract specification. After investigation, they concluded that the generators, manufactured in 2000, had been previously purchased by others but never used. Fisk obtained different generators, which were accepted by the VA. In 2007, Reliable submitted a claim, seeking $1,100,000 for additional costs incurred as a result of rejection of the original generators. In 2013, the Board of Contract Appeals denied Reliable’s claim. The Federal Circuit vacated, holding that the Board erred in its interpretation of the contract. View "Reliable Contracting Grp., LLC v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs" on Justia Law

Lydig Construction was the general contractor on a large public works project. Martinez Steel was the original steel supply subcontractor on the project. Lydig sued Martinez for additional costs Lydig incurred because Martinez failed to timely supply steel for the project; Lydig, with the public agency's approval, had been required to replace Martinez as the steel supplier. Lydig moved for a right to attach order and a writ of attachment and presented the trial court with its business records and declarations from its employees. Martinez opposed Lydig's motion and presented declarations from one of its employees that set forth its contention Lydig owed it for, among other items, steel Martinez had delivered to the project. Martinez filed a cross-complaint in which it alleged claims that, if successful, would entirely offset Lydig's claims against it. The trial court granted Lydig's motion and issued writs of attachment in the amount of $203,315. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting Martinez's contentions that its cross-complaint, as a matter of law, prevented the trial court from issuing a writ of attachment against it and that Lydig's application for a writ of attachment was not supported by substantial evidence. View "Lydig Constr., Inc. v. Martinez Steel Corp." on Justia Law

Belasco bought a new Manhattan Beach residence in 2004 from the builder (Wells). In 2006, Belasco filed a complaint with the Contractors State License Board, alleging construction defects. Belasco and Wells settled the dispute in 2006, with Wells paying $25,000 and Belasco executing a release and a Civil Code 15241 waiver of all known or unknown claims. In 2012, Belasco sued, based on an alleged roof defect discovered in 2011. The trial court entered summary judgment, finding the action barred by the settlement. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting arguments that: the 2006 general release and waiver for patent construction defects is not a “reasonable release” of a subsequent claim for latent defects under section 929 and the Right to Repair Act (section 895); a reasonable release can only apply to a “particular violation” and not to a latent defect under section 945.5(f), and the 2006 settlement was too vague to be a valid; section 932 authorizes an action on “[s]ubsequently discovered claims of unmet standards;” public policy prohibits use of a general release and section 1542 waiver to bar a subsequent claim for latent residential construction defects; and a genuine issue of fact existed concerning fraud and negligence claims that would void the settlement under section 1668. View "Belasco v. Wells" on Justia Law

In 2004, K-Con entered into a contract with the federal government to construct a Coast Guard building in Port Huron Michigan for $582,641. Once K-Con finished, the government imposed liquidated damages of $109,554 for tardiness of 186 days in completion. KCon sued, seeking remission of the liquidated damages on two grounds—that the contract’s liquidated-damages clause was unenforceable and that KCon was entitled to an extension of the completion date. KCon also requested additional compensation based on work performed in response to government requests that K-Con alleges amounted to contract changes. The Court of Federal Claims held that the contract’s liquidated damages clause was enforceable; that K-Con did not comply with the written-notice precondition for invoking the contract clause governing changes; and that K-Con’s claim for an extension on the completion date must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit affirmed. K-Con failed to comply with the changes clause, and its after-the-fact speculations about what would have happened had it complied do not create a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether it should be excused for its failure. View "K-Con Bldg. Sys., Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

During a highway paving project a storm caused recently applied primer to emulsify in rainwater. The oil splashed onto passing vehicles, causing damage. The vehicle owners brought claims against the State, which the State paid. A.M. Welles, Inc. (Welles), the general contractor on the job, reimbursed the State for what it paid to the vehicle owners. The State then sued Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. (Liberty), the insurer for the job, seeking indemnification for the costs that Welles did not cover. Welles, in turn, sued the subcontractors for the project, Montana Materials, Inc., RSJ, Inc., and GLJ, Inc. (collectively, “Jensen”), seeking indemnification under the subcontract. The district court granted summary judgment for Jensen on Welles’s indemnification claim and dismissed the State’s action against Liberty for failure to prosecute. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded, holding that the district court (1) erred in denying Welles’s motion for summary judgment, as Welles was entitled to indemnification under the subcontract; and (2) abused its discretion by dismissing the State’s action against Liberty for failure to prosecute. Remanded. View "A.M. Welles, Inc. v. Mont. Materials, Inc." on Justia Law

Christopher Walton and Tammara Duhn hired Jacob Hatch and his construction company (collectively, Hatch) as the general contractor to build a custom home in a subdivision. Hatch drew up two proposed written contracts, but Walton and Duhn would not sign either one. Nevertheless, construction began. A dispute over what Walton and Duhn owed Hatch led Hatch to terminate his involvement in the project before the house was finished. Walton and Duhn sued Hatch for breach of contract, among other claims. The district court entered judgment in favor of Walton and Duhn and awarded damages. The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding that the district court (1) erred in calculating the damages that Walton and Duhn suffered as a result of Hatch’s improper billing practices; (2) erred in finding liability and awarding damages for breach of an implied warranty that the home would be built in a skillful and workmanlike manner; and (3) did not abuse its discretion in denying Walton’s and Duhn’s application for attorney fees. View "Walton v. Hatch" on Justia Law

FTR has constructed buildings for public entities for 15 years. In 1999, FTR submitted the winning bid of $7.345 million to construct a District school. During construction, FTR submitted approximately 150 proposed change orders (PCO). FTR claimed some were necessary because the District’s plans were inadequate or misleading. The District denied most of the PCOs on the grounds that the work was covered under the basic contract, the amounts claimed were excessive, or that a PCO was not timely under the contract. Construction was completed in 2001. Public Contract Code 7107 allows a public entity to withhold funds due a contractor when there are liens on the property or a good faith dispute concerning whether the work was properly performed. The court of appeal held that the trial court properly assessed penalties against District because it did not timely release retained funds; properly rejected the District's action under the False Claims Act, Government Code 12650; and properly assessed prejudgment interest. The court erred in its interpretation of a contract provision imposing time limitations to submit claims for extra work as requiring a showing of prejudice and erred in awarding fees for work not solely related to FTR's section 7107 cause of action. View "FTR Int'l, Inc. v. Rio Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Bellingham Marine hired Major Engineering to construct a travel lift pier at the Channel Islands Harbor. Bellingham hired Moffatt, a civil engineering firm, to prepare the plans, which required that the concrete have a specific air entrainment and that the concrete, when cured, attain a specific compressive strength. Major's contract with Bellingham provided that if the concrete failed to meet the compression strength standard, that it would be removed and replaced at Major's expense. Major hired State, which submitted a concrete mix design. Moffatt, at the request of Major, reviewed and approved the design. It was not part of Moffatt's job duties. State delivered seven truck loads of wet pre-mixed concrete. After the concrete was cast, Major's testing lab took a sample that showed the concrete had inadequate compressive strength. Major demolished and rebuilt the affected portion of the pier. It sued; State filed a cross-complaint for implied equitable indemnity and contribution, alleging that Moffatt failed to use reasonable care in reviewing and approving the mix design. The court dismissed, finding that Moffatt was not in privity of contract with Major or State and that the cross-complaint was barred by the economic loss rule. The court of appeal affirmed. View "State Ready Mix Iv. Moffatt & Nichol" on Justia Law

The School District entered into a construction contract with Amoroso. Pursuant to Public Contract Code 22300, Amoroso elected to have the retention held in an escrow account in the form of securities. The escrow agreement stated that “District shall have the right to draw upon the securities and/or withdraw amounts from the Escrow Account in event of default by Contractor as determined solely by District.” The District gave written notice of material breach on March 30, 2011, based on Amoroso’s failure to complete, timely or at all, any of the three project phases and requested that Amoroso cure by April 4. Amoroso contested the assertions of material breach by letter dated April 1. The District sent notice of termination on April 18 and filed suit. On April 28, the parties entered into an “Exit and Demobilization Agreement,” “in lieu of any final termination or statement of default under the Contract.” The District sent a letter requesting withdrawal of $3.5 million from the escrow account, attaching its attorney’s memorandum as to why withdrawal was permissible. Amoroso unsuccessfully sought an injunction. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting Amoroso’s claim that a public project owner must await judicial resolution of the underlying contract dispute before it can withdraw retention funds. View "Pittsburg Unified Sch. Dist. v. S.J. Amoroso Constr. Co., Inc." on Justia Law