Category Archives: Liquidated Damage Provision

Michigan Court of Appeals Holds That Contractor Who Failed to Timely Seek a Time Extension Is Barred From Contesting Liquidated Damages

Abhe & Svboda, Inc. v. State of Michigan Department of Transportation, 2017 Mich. App. Lexis 1387 (August 29, 2017) Contractor Abhe & Svboda, Inc. (“A&B”) entered into a contract with the Michigan Department of Transportation (“MDOT”) to clean and paint … Continue reading

Posted in Liquidated Damage Provision | Tagged , , , ,

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

Ohio Court of Appeals Holds Liquidated Damages Unenforceable Where Amount of Liquidated Damages Is Disproportionate to Contract Price

Boone Coleman Construction, Inc. v. Village of Piketon, 2014-Ohio-2377, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 2317 (Ohio Ct. App. May 22, 2014) The Court of Appeals of Ohio held that a liquidated damages provision in a public construction contract constituted an unenforceable … Continue reading

Posted in Delay, Liquidated Damage Provision

Superior Court of Pennsylvania Holds Award of Prejudgment Interest on Damages for Breach of Contract is Discretionary in Most Circumstances

Cresci Constr. Servs., Inc. v. Martin 2013 Pa. Super. LEXIS 154 (Pa. Super. Ct. Mar. 28, 2013) Martin hired Cresci to build a home in exchange for $184,730. The Contract included a liquidated damages clause that applied if Martin canceled … Continue reading

Posted in Breach of Contract, Liquidated Damage Provision | Tagged , , ,