Category Archives: Delay

Federal Court Holds That, Under Louisiana Law, a Contractor Need Not Show a Total Work Stoppage to Recover Extended Home Office Overhead Under Eichleay

Team Contrs., L.L.C. v. Waypoint NOLA, L.L.C., No. 16-1131, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162172 (E.D. La. Oct. 2, 2017). Waypoint NOLA (“Waypoint”) was the owner of a hotel construction project in New Orleans (the “Project”).  Waypoint contracted with Team Contractors … Continue reading

Posted in Delay | Tagged , , , ,

Ohio Appeals Court Holds That Contractor Who Seeks Application of HOOP Formula to Calculate Home Office Overhead Need Not Prove The Conditions Precedent For Application of Eichleay Formula

Wood Elec., Inc. v. Ohio Facilities Constr. Comm’n, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 16AP-643, 2017-Ohio-2743, 2017 Ohio App. Lexis 1745 (May 9, 2017) The Ohio Facilities Construction Commission (“OFCC”), together with a school district, an architect, and a construction manager, issued … Continue reading

Posted in Delay, Uncategorized | Tagged , , ,

Texas District Court Rejects Rail Contractor’s Delay and Prompt Payment Claims and Awards Owner More Than $3 Million

Balfour Beatty Rail, Inc. v. The Kansas City Southern Railway Company, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39086 (N.D. Tex., March 25, 2016) The contractor contracted with owner to install 65 miles of railroad track, for a price of $12,206,666.  The owner … Continue reading

Posted in Breach of Contract, Delay, Differing Site Conditions, Extra Work, Payment dispute, Unjust Enrichment

Ohio Supreme Court Holds Reasonableness of Liquidated Damage Provision to Be Determined Based Upon the Parties’ Knowledge at Time of Contracting Rather than After Performance

Boone Coleman Constr., Inc. v. Vill. of Piketon, 2016-Ohio-628, 2016 Ohio LEXIS 441 (Ohio Feb. 24, 2016) A general contractor entered into a construction contract with a public agency for a road construction project with a $700 per day liquidated … Continue reading

Posted in Delay, Liquidated Damage Provision

Washington State Court Affirms $155M Jury Award Against Contractor and Surety Stemming from Claim of Default Due to Delayed Performance, Sustaining Denial of Contractor’s Differing Site Condition Defense

Joseph T. Imperiale, Pepper Hamilton LLP, Partner James M. Kwartnik Jr., Pepper Hamilton LLP, Associate King County v. Vinci Construction Grands Projects/Parsons RCI/Frontier-Kemper, JV, 2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 2735 (Nov. 9, 2015) The Court of Appeals of Washington recently decided … Continue reading

Posted in Delay, Differing Site Conditions, Liquidated Damage Provision