Absolutely nothing! … to contractors that is … but to employers … a different answer.
Okay, so the Supreme Court recently ruled that state laws banning same sex marriage are unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
You may have your own personal opinion against or in support of the Supreme Court’s
There’s “new.” And there’s “new to you.” And there’s “refurbished new.” And there’s “open box special new.” And there’s “floor display model new.” But when it comes to contract specifications requiring “new” equipment, one court looked to a dictionary to define it as “never used before” and “free of significant damage.”
In a recent case,
Words matter. Grammar matters. Even punctuation matters:
Let’s eat, Grandma!
Let’s eat Grandma!
For one government contractor, its claim was recently rejected by the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals because the Board found that the Contractor did not properly state its claim. In Construction Group LLC v. Dept. of Homeland Security, 15-1 BCA para.
In our house of seven children, a penny found on the ground brings laughter and excitement. You can imagine the opposite reaction when a contractor bids a penny for rock removal for a competitive bid and later discovers that there was 250% more rock than anticipated.
That’s what happened recently in Celco Construction Corp. v.
In anticipation of what could be an influx of wintry weather, the Tennessee Department of Transportation has made arrangements to ensure the state’s roadways stay clear. According to the Johnson City Press, TDOT has distributed more than 200,000 tons of salt and 2 million gallons of brine to stations in each of the state’s
I have written before about statutes of limitation and statutes of repose relating to construction disputes. I recently learned that these principles may not apply to a public owner’s claims against design professionals and contractors.
Statutes of limitation/repose? In its simplest terms, a statute of limitation is a time limit for bringing a lawsuit (
It’s Friday morning and there are probably better things you would like to do with your remaining day than read a 22-page government contracts decision.
But if you have ever experienced a differing site condition on your project, then here is why you should read pages 17-20 of the recent decision in Metcalf Construction Company v. United States (pdf). On February 11, 2014, the Federal Circuit released its decision in the Metcalf Construction case, which addressed in part a differing site condition claim.
Although the appeal was based primarily on the standard for a breach of duty of good faith (and the opinion talks mostly about that issue), there is some good language in the second part of the opinion about how the trial court wrongly interpreted the differing site conditions provision in the public contract (pages 17-20).Continue Reading Differing Site Conditions and Why You Should Read Pages 17-20 of the Metcalf Decision
Who’s the Man? Ever heard of that phrase? Well, in a recent construction dispute in Maryland, “the Man” was the owner’s insurance company. And the lesson learned was: don’t settle your construction dispute without first checking with the man!
In Perini/Tompkins Joint Venture v. ACE American Insurance Company (pdf), applying Maryland and Tennessee law, the Fourth Circuit held that the joint venture contractor violated the terms of both the primary insurance and excess insurance policies by not obtaining the insurer’s consent before settlement. Accordingly, the joint venture could not claim reimbursement under the policies.Continue Reading Don’t Settle Your Construction Dispute Without Checking with the (Insurance) Man
Earlier in the year, I made an April Fool’s Day joke on Twitter about the Supreme Court granting an appeal in a construction dispute. Apparently, the joke was on me…because the Supreme Court did take an appeal in a construction dispute!
On December 3, 2013, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in In re Atl.
I have often wondered whether there is such a thing as too small a dispute. Well, the parties in Earl Faulkner v. Tom Emmett Construction Company (pdf) determined to take their $3,000 construction dispute to the Tennessee Court of Appeals. In the end, the Court gave some good instructions on the "first material breach" rule, which