Construction Claims Monthly

 
2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999 | 1998 | 1997 | 1996 |

Searched Library for year - 2014
 

INDEX


December 2014 - Volume 36 Number 12

Geotechnical Report Didn't Speak To Quantity Of Water
Sub Properly Rejected Because It Didn't 'Manufacture' Elevators
Incorporation By Reference Doesn't Restrict Miller Act Rights
Subcontract Didn't Incorporate All Provisions On FAR Website
No Delay Damages Where Owner's 'Active Interference' Wasn't Willful
Bilt Rite Legacy Equates A Defective Design With A 'Material' Fact

November 2014 - Volume 36 Number 11

Subcontract Improperly Restricted Miller Act
Submittal Of Sub's Invoices To Owner Wasn't Work Acceptance
Sub Entitled To Rely On Specs' Min/Max Measurements
Performance Of 'Minor Tasks' Doesn't Mean Contractor Wasn't On Standby
Letter Of Intent Holds Sub Liable For Liquidated Damages
Sub Failed To Specify Damages Amount And The Breach That Caused Them

October 2014 - Volume 36 Number 10

Texas Bars Economic Loss Recovery For Architect's Negligence
Contractor May Have Failed To Provide 'Documents' Required For Payment
Subcontract Can't Waive Prompt Payment Law
Miller Act Time Limit Extends Beyond 90 Days For 'Open Accounts
Subcontract Provided For Monthly Payments While Sub Was On Standby
Work Suspension Notice Is Not A Default Notice
'Proprietary' Product Required Despite FAR Clause

September 2014 - Volume 36 Number 9

Discussion of Changed Work Results in Waiver of Contract's Written Change Order Requirements;
Construction Contract Requires Written Invoice Before Owner Must Pay Contractor
Pennsylvania Carves Back Prior Rulings That Construction Defect Claims Are Not An 'Occurrence&
U.S. Supreme Court Holds Forum-Selection Clauses Are Presumptively Enforceable
How You Could End Up Paying The Price Of A Sub's Noncompliance With A PLA
When Bond Claims Don't Work
Update: A New Way To Foresee Arbitration Costs

August 2014 - Volume 36 Number 8

'Extreme Circumstances' Excused Sub's Failure To Meet Claim Notice Deadline
Sub Claimed $1.5M Task Was Not It's Responsibility
Delaware's Payment Act Applies To 'Building Construction' Only
Unclear If Contractor Stopped Work--Or Finished 'To The Extent Practicable'
Design/Build Contractor Couldn't Rely On Govt.'s Geotechnical Reports
Bid Price Reasonableness v. Price Realism
Slight Twist On Publicly Available Info Isn't Sufficient For FCA Suit

July 2014 - Volume 36 Number 7

Low Bid Price Was Not Improper, Unbalanced
Sureties Did Not Act 'In The Spirit' Of Delay Claim Notice Requirements
No Contract Ambiguity Even Though Both Contractor & Sub Were Confused
Contractor May Have Taken Over Sub's Contract For Equipment Rental
Noncompliant Sub Must Indemnify Contractor For Doing Its Corrective Work
No 'Superior Knowledge' Exception To Parol Evidence Rule
Unpaid Sub Can't Use CERCLA To Recover From Owner That's 'Borne The Costs Of Its Actions'

June 2014 - Volume 36 Number 6

Govt.'s Refusal To Consider Affiliates' Experience Was 'Unduly Restrictive'
Contractor Uses Surety's Own 'Facts' To Challenge Bond Claim Settlement
Federal Prompt Payment Law (And Its Remedies) Preempted State's
Contractor's Conduct Showed Written Contract Was Not Binding
Texas' 10-Year Statute Of Repose Protects Construction Manager
In W. Virginia, 'Prime Contractor' Doesn't Equal 'General Contractor'
Prompt Pay Act Applies To Specific 'Contract'-- Not 'Project'
SUBCONTRACT'S REFERENCE TO PRIME CONTRACT DIDN'T WAIVE MILLER ACT RIGHTS

May 2014 - Volume 36 Number 5

Contract Termination V. Contract Change: What’s The New Price?
Sovereign Immunity Won’t Shield Contractor From Independent Acts Of Negligence
Sub Not Equitably Estopped From Collecting On Miller Act Bond
Non-Signatory Must Comply With Payment Bond’s Forum Selection Clause
'Not To Exceed' Language Didn't Permit Sub To Bill At Maximum Unit Price
Participation In Arbitration Waived Right To Challenge $2.5M Award
No Default Where Contractor Was ‘Willing & Able’ To Comply With Specs
Work Scope Discrepancy Is Not A Waive-able Bid Error

April 2014 - Volume 36 Number 4

Defective Work Didn't Trigger 'Contractual Liability' CGL Exclusion
Good Faith Covenant Needn't Be Tied To Breach Of An Express Contract Duty
Engineer Not Liable for Representing That Owner Would Pay For Extras
A Notice Of Deficiency Is Not Necessarily A Notice Of Default
Conduct Waived Written Change Order Requirement
Impact Math: Total Cost Method V. Jury Verdict
Sole-Source Specs Charge Belongs In A Protest, Not An Appeal
Bid’s Technical Superiority Didn't Justify $6M Price Premium

March 2014 - Volume 36 Number 3

5 REASONS SUB’S BID DID NOT CREATE A CONTRACT
CONTRACTOR SHOULDERED ALL $7 MILLION OF PROJECT PERMIT RISK
NO DELAY DAMAGES FOR NON-PUBLIC-WORKS SUB
NO SIGNED PURCHASE ORDER, BUT THERE WAS AN IMPLIED CONTRACT
‘NEW’ EQUIPMENT IS NOT ‘UNUSED’ OR ‘WARRANTABLE’ EQUIPMENT
CDA SAYS JOINT VENTURE, NOT ITS PARTNERS, IS THE ‘CONTRACTOR’
OFFERORS MUST DO ALL THEY CAN -- AND SHOULD --TO GUARD AGAINST LATE PROPOSALS

February 2014 - Volume 36 Number 2

GOVT. CONTRACTORS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR CLASS-OF-ONE EQUAL PROTECTION
IN LOUISIANA, STRICT NOTICE RULES TO PRESERVE MATERIALMAN’S LIEN RIGHTS
SUB COULDN’T REFUSE TO AGREE WHERE PROJECT SCHEDULE WAS TO BE ‘MUTUALLY AGREEABLE’
NO-DAMAGES-FOR-DELAY CLAUSE VOID IN KENTUCKY -- AND UNDER MILLER ACT
POOR DRAINAGE + SHODDY FINISHING + GENERAL SLOPPINESS = DEFECTIVE WORK
MINNESOTA BOND CLAIM NOTICE REQUIREMENT DEMANDS STRICT COMPLIANCE
CITY MAY PAY DAMAGES TO UNSUCCESSFUL BIDDER FOR IMPROPER CONTRACT AWARD
SUB HAD POWER TO TERMINATE CONTRACT FOR NONPAYMENT

January 2014 - Volume 36 Number 1

WHEN IS THE GOVT. BOUND BY A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT?
SURETY’S LIABILITY LIMITED TO BOND’S PENAL SUM
CONTRACTOR COULD GO UNPAID FOR 5 MILLION GALLONS’ WORTH OF WORK
CLAUSE THAT DELETED ARBITRATION AGREEMENT WAS AMBIGUOUS
SUB CAN SEEK MILLER ACT REMEDY FOLLOWING CHANGE ORDER REQUEST DENIAL
INJURED PARTY HAD EQUAL EXPERTISE WITH WHICH TO DETERMINE DESIGN BREACH
OFFEROR SHOWED ‘REASONABLE POSSIBILITY’ IT WAS PREJUDICED
INCONSISTENT EVALUATION MAY HAVE COST OFFEROR THE AWARD