U.S. District Court in South Dakota Denies Summary Judgment on Contractor’s Set-off Defense Based on Delay in Delivery to Supplier’s Claim for Payment On Grounds That Material Issues of Fact Existed Regarding Time for Delivery and UCC Notice to Supplier

Blesi-Evans Co. v. Western Mechanical Service, Inc.
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36302 (S.D. April 13, 2010)

Defendant Western Mechanical Services, Inc. entered into a contract with the state of South Dakota to replace boilers on the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology campus Western, in turn, solicited bids for the boilers. Western accepted Plaintiff Blesi-Evans Co.’s proposal to supply one of the boilers. A dispute arose out of the delay in the production and delivery of that boiler. Continue reading “U.S. District Court in South Dakota Denies Summary Judgment on Contractor’s Set-off Defense Based on Delay in Delivery to Supplier’s Claim for Payment On Grounds That Material Issues of Fact Existed Regarding Time for Delivery and UCC Notice to Supplier”

U.S. District Court in Florida Rules Expert Witness Not Required to Establish Architectural or Engineering Standards of Care, Where Claims Based on Rejection of Designs for Noncompliance With Codes

Lillibridge Health Care Services, Inc. v. Hunton Brady Architects, P.A.
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34210 (M.D. Fla. April 7, 2010)

Lillibridge Healthcare Services, Inc. sued Hunton Brady Architects, P.A. and Heery International, Inc. for breach of contract, negligent design, and negligent misrepresentation.

Hunton had entered into an agreement with Mediplex Medical Building Corporation (“MMBC”) to prepare documents and to provide other services for the construction of a four story, steel frame medical office building located in Celebration, Florida. MMBC assigned its rights under that contract to Lillibridge. Heery had assumed obligations under a subcontract with Hunton to perform the engineering work for the Project. Continue reading “U.S. District Court in Florida Rules Expert Witness Not Required to Establish Architectural or Engineering Standards of Care, Where Claims Based on Rejection of Designs for Noncompliance With Codes”

U.S. Court of Appeals for Sixth Circuit Holds Ohio Statute Precludes Application of “No Damage for Delay” Clause

Acme Contracting, Ltd. v. Toltest, Inc.
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 6144 (6th Cir. Mar. 24, 2010)

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a District Court decision that a “no damage for delay” clause was void and unenforceable pursuant to Section 4113.62 of the Ohio Revised Code. The clause contained provisions requiring that any “delay must be reported in writing and an extension of time shall be the sole and exclusive remedy of Contractor for any such delays or suspensions, but only to the extent that a time extension is obtained from the Owner,” and that “no claims will be accepted for costs incurred due to delays caused by others except to the extent that such delays exceed four (4) months.” Continue reading “U.S. Court of Appeals for Sixth Circuit Holds Ohio Statute Precludes Application of “No Damage for Delay” Clause”