Justia Construction Law Opinion Summaries

The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) is composed of industry members, academicians, design professionals, and government officials. Its standards provide guidelines for refrigeration processes and design and maintenance of energy efficient buildings. Thermal manufactures liner insulation systems for nonresidential metal buildings. Thermal’s liner systems compete with “over-the-purlin systems,” which comprise about 90% of the market for metal building roof insulation systems. Since 1999, ASHRAE has published Standard 90.1, which rates the energy efficiency of insulation assemblies and has considerable influence in the commercial building industry. In 2011, the Department of Energy determined that Standard 90.1 would be the national commercial building reference standard; within two years every state had to certify that it had adopted a commercial building code that is at least as stringent as Standard 90.1. Until 2010, Standard 90.1 treated non-laminated metal building insulation assemblies, like Thermal’s liner systems, differently from other insulation assemblies. Owners had to obtain special permission to install liner systems. Thermal alleged that representatives of the North American Insulation Manufacturer’s Association and the Metal Building Manufacturers Association, both of which have voting members on ASHRAE’s Envelope Subcommittee, procured this result by providing inaccurate data. ASHRAE declined to accept results of tests commissioned by Thermal. Thermal sued, alleging unfair competition, violation of Wisconsin’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act, antitrust violations, and violation of the Lanham Act. The court rejected all of the claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Thermal Design, Inc. v. Am. Soc'y of Heating, Refrigerating & Air-Conditioning Eng'rs, Inc." on Justia Law

Miller-Davis Company was an "at risk" contractor for the Sherman Lake YMCA's natatorium project. Miller-Davis hired defendant Ahrens Construction, Inc., as a subcontractor to install similar roof systems on three rooms, including the natatorium. After nearly a decade of litigation and alternative dispute resolution proceedings, the indemnification contract underlying the troubled natatorium roof in this case was brought before the Supreme Court. The Court previously held that the six-year period of limitations of MCL 600.5807(8) applied to the parties’ indemnification contract. Upon further review, the Court held that the indemnity clauses in the parties’ subcontract applied here, because the plain language of the indemnification clauses extended to Ahrens’s failure to undertake corrective work as obligated by the subcontract. Furthermore, because the Sherman Lake YMCA made a "claim" upon Miller-Davis which triggered Ahrens’s liability under the indemnity clauses, Ahrens’ failure to indemnify caused the damages Miller-Davis sustained in undertaking the corrective work itself. Finally, the Court held that Miller-Davis’ claim was not barred by the six-year statute of limitations found in MCL 600.5807(8). Rather, Miller-Davis’ breach of contract claim for Ahrens’s failure to indemnify is distinct from its breach of contract claim based on Ahrens’s failure to install the roof according to specifications, and Miller-Davis’s indemnity action necessarily accrued at a later point. The Court reversed that portion of the Court of Appeals’ opinion discussing Miller-Davis’s indemnity claim, and remanded this case to the Circuit Court for entry of judgment in Miller-Davis’s favor and to determine whether Miller-Davis is entitled to attorney’s fees under the relevant indemnification clauses. View "Miller-Davis Co. v. Ahrens Construction, Inc." on Justia Law

This case arose from a contract between Roanoke Healthcare Authority (doing business as Randolph Medical Center) and Batson-Cook Company, a general contractor, to renovate the medical center, located in Roanoke. Batson-Cook received written notice from Roanoke Healthcare that work on the renovation project had been suspended. Batson-Cook notified one of its subcontractors, Hardy, of the suspension and stated that "[t]he contract has been suspended by [Roanoke Healthcare] through no fault of Batson-Cook ... or its subcontractors. [Roanoke Healthcare] is currently out of funding and has subsequently closed the facility while seeking a buyer." Liberty Mutual, the project's insurer, alleged in its answer that Roanoke Healthcare failed to pay Batson-Cook $241,940.51 for work performed pursuant to the contract. Batson-Cook sent Hardy a change order the change order deducted from the subcontract the $147,000 in equipment and materials another subcontractor Hardy hired, Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI), had furnished for the renovation project and for which it has not received payment. JCI notified Liberty Mutual, Roanoke Healthcare, Batson-Cook, and Hardy by certified letters of its claim on a payment bond. The letters identified Batson-Cook as the general contractor and Hardy as the debtor. Liberty Mutual denied the claim. JCI sued Liberty Mutual, alleging JCI was entitled to payment on the payment bond Liberty Mutual had issued to Batson-Cook. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded JCI was a proper claimant on the payment bond. Therefore, the circuit court erred in entering a summary judgment in favor of Liberty Mutual and denying JCI's summary judgment motion. View "Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company " on Justia Law

Tharaldson Ethanol Plant I, LLC and Tharaldson Financial Group, Inc. appealed a judgment and amended judgment ordering Tharaldson Financial to pay VEI Global, Inc., $1,150,000 plus interest, and an order granting certification under N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b). VEI provided design and construction management services for an ethanol plant owned and operated by Tharaldson Ethanol. In 2009, Tharaldson Ethanol and VEI reached a settlement on disputed fees, agreeing Tharaldson Ethanol would pay VEI $1,350,000 for all work VEI performed through February 28, 2009. The agreement also provided Tharaldson Financial would enter into a $1,350,000 promissory note payable to VEI, and a copy of the note was attached and incorporated into the agreement. Tharaldson Ethanol and Tharaldson Financial sued VEI, claiming VEI negligently designed and constructed the ethanol plant. The complaint sought damages for breach of warranty, breach of contract, and negligence claims; and sought a declaratory judgment that Tharaldson Ethanol and Tharaldson Financial did not owe VEI anything under the settlement agreement or promissory note because of damages VEI caused by its breaches of contract and warranty and other wrongful acts. VEI answered and counterclaimed, including a breach of contract claim against Tharaldson Financial for failing to make payments on the promissory note. The district court ultimately granted VEI's motion for partial summary judgment, finding there were no genuine issues of material fact and VEI was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and ordered VEI was entitled to judgment against Tharaldson Financial in the amount of $1,150,000, with interest. The Supreme Court dismissed Tharaldson Ethanol and Tharaldson Financial's appeal, holding that "[c]ertification under N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b) must be reserved for 'the unusual case in which the costs and risks of multiplying the number of proceedings and of overcrowding the appellate docket are outbalanced by pressing needs of the litigants for an early and separate judgment as to some claims or parties.'" The Court concluded this case did not present "out-of-the-ordinary circumstances" or the "infrequent harsh case" warranting its immediate review. Consequently, the Court did not reach the merits of Tharaldson Ethanol and Tharaldson Financial's appeal. View "Tharaldson Ethanol Plant I, LLC v. VEI Global, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Victor Virgin Construction Corporation appealed a Superior Court remitting a jury award following an advisory jury finding of breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation by defendant New Hampshire Department of Transportation (DOT). DOT cross-appealed, asking that the award be further reduced. In 2008, Virgin bid on a DOT project to replace a stone box culvert located underneath Depot Road in Hollis. Virgin submitted the lowest bid and was awarded the contract. After completion of the project, DOT paid Virgin the sum agreed to in the contract with only a minor upward adjustment. Virgin sued DOT for both breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. The trial court denied DOT's request to bifurcate the trial; subsequently the jury found in favor of Virgin. DOT then moved for a new trial or to set aside the jury's damages award. The trial court granted remittitur, but did no enter a finding of liability on the breach of contract claim, finding that the award could only be sustained on the negligent misrepresentation claim. Virgin then appealed, seeking the full amount of damages awarded by the jury. The Supreme Court found that Virgin's negligent misrepresentation claim for money damages was capped by statute, therefore it was not entitled to the full amount of damages originally awarded by the jury. That cap does not apply to breach of contract, however, and because the trial court did not include findings with regard to liability on the breach of contract claim, the case was remanded for further proceedings.View "Victor Virgin Construction Corp. v. New Hampshire Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

At the heart of this appeal was a mechanic's lien filed against the Black Rock North Development in Coeur d?Alene, Idaho, and an uncompleted golf course community development. American Bank (the Bank) was the lender to BRN Development, Inc. (BRN). BRN hired Wadsworth Golf Construction Company of the Southwest (Wadsworth) to construct a golf course. BRN failed to pay Wadsworth for a portion of the work it performed, and Wadsworth filed a mechanic's lien against the property. BRN defaulted on the loan, and the Bank initiated foreclosure proceedings. Wadsworth's claim of lien was subordinate to the Bank's mortgage interest in the property. In order to proceed with a foreclosure sale, the Bank posted a lien release bond in order to secure the district court's order releasing Wadsworth's lien. The Bank was the successful bidder at the foreclosure sale. The district court ruled that priority of the parties? claims against the property was irrelevant once the property was replaced by the lien release bond as security for Wadsworth's claim and the Bank (by way of the bond) was responsible for payment of Wadsworth's lien claim. The Bank appeals that decision, arguing that Wadsworth should have been prevented from recovering against the lien release bond because its interest would have been extinguished if it had attempted to foreclose its mechanic's lien and the bond merely served as substitute security in place of the property. Wadsworth cross-appealed, arguing the district court erred in holding that Wadsworth waived its right to file a lien for the unpaid retainage on the contract. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the district court allowing Wadsworth to recover against the lien release bond and vacated the district court's judgment in favor of Wadsworth. View "Americn Bank v. Wadsworth Golf" on Justia Law

The underlying dispute in this matter centered on the sale and demolition of a bridge across the Ohio River between West Virginia and Ohio. Advanced Explosives Demolition, Inc. (AED) entered a contract to sell the bridge to KDC Investments, LLC (KDC) for $25,000. AED alleged that it also entered into another contract in which KDC hired it to perform explosive demolition work prior to removal of the bridge. After the bridge sale was complete, KDC terminated its relationship with AED and hired another demolition contractor. AED brought an action for fraud and breach of contract against KDC and asked the district court to rescind the sales contract. The district court denied the request for rescission and granted summary judgment in favor of KDC on the fraud and breach of contract claims, holding that AED had provided no evidence of fraud and concluding that the demolition contract was illegal because AED did not have the necessary West Virginia contractor's license when it entered into the contract. AED appealed the district court's denial of its request. The Supreme Court held that AED waived the issue of whether the district court abused its discretion in striking certain affidavits presented at trial. However, the Court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of KDC and the district court's order quieting title to a Toll Bridge in KDC. View "AED, Inc v. KDC Investments" on Justia Law

This dispute arose from the construction of a commercial building. Before the property was purchased, Respondent Bryan Causey hired GS2 Engineering and Environmental Consulting, Inc. (GS2) to perform an engineering analysis of the soils on the property to determine whether the land was suitable for construction. Causey formed Causey Consulting, LLC (of which he was the sole member), and Causey Consulting purchased the property to construct the commercial building. Appellant Crouch Construction Company was retained as the general contractor. The parties' dispute began over the amount of unsuitable soils excavated from the building site: during construction, it became apparent that more unsuitable soil needed to be removed than was initially anticipated, and the removal of additional soil increased the cost of the project. The construction project was substantially completed then occupied by Respondent Celebrations of Columbia, LLC, of which Causey is also a member. When Appellant did not receive final payment for the work, it filed a mechanic's lien and a suit to foreclose the lien. The circuit court ordered arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause in the construction contract. The arbitrator determined Appellant was owed money under the contract, plus interest, attorney's fees and costs. Respondents moved to vacate the award, seeking to have it set aside based on several unfavorable evidentiary rulings and general allegations that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law. The circuit court denied Respondents' motion. However, before an order was entered, Respondents learned that an engineer employed by GS2 was the brother of one of the arbitrator's law partners. Respondents filed a supplemental motion to vacate the arbitration award, reiterating their previous arguments and raising several new claims, citing the arbitrator's failure to disclose his law partner's relationship with an employee of GS2. The circuit court found that vacatur was warranted, and , the circuit court held the award should be set aside. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the arbitrator was not evidently partial towards GS2 or either party. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded the case to the circuit court for confirmation of the arbitration award.View "Crouch Construction v. Causey" on Justia Law

At the heart of this case was a dispute between developer, Birchwood Land Company, Inc., and contractor, Ormond Bushey & Sons, Inc. over a construction contract.  The developer sued for breach of contract, claiming mainly that the contractor had removed excavated sand from the construction site without permission.  The contractor counterclaimed for amounts due under the contract. The court found that the contractor breached the contract and granted the developer damages for the lost sand. The unpaid balance owed on the contract was offset by the damages. On appeal, the contractor argued that the court erred in denying its request for interest penalties and attorney's fees as the substantially prevailing party. The developer argued that the court erred in limiting damages for the sand removal, denying its request for punitive damages, granting prejudgment interest on contractor's net recovery, and denying its claim for slander of title. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the evidence in the record supported the trial court's judgment in this case and affirmed the outcome.View "Birchwood Land Company, Inc. v. Ormond Bushey & Sons, Inc." on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court centered on the grant of summary judgment in favor of Respondent Action Concrete Contractors, Inc. in a mechanic's lien foreclosure action. Owners Elvira Chappelear, Craig Chappelear, Premier Southern Homes, LLC, Henry G. Beal, Jr. and First Citizens Bank and Trust Co., Inc. argued on appeal there were material issues of fact and that the grant of summary judgment was inappropriate. The Supreme Court disagreed after its review of the trial court record and affirmed. View "Action Concrete v. Chappelear" on Justia Law