Search

The article reports that a new bridge will be constructed to replace the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge. The old bridge was built in the year 1962 to carry Route 12 over the Oregon Inlet to link Hatteras and Bodie islands along Outer Banks of North Carolina. A lawsuit filed in 2011 by environmental organizations Defenders of Wildlife and the National Wildlife Refuge Association, delayed the construction of the new bridge.

The article refers to a court case De Avila v. Espinoza Metal Building & Roofing Contractors regarding a dispute concerning the right to terminate for convenience. Sole proprietor Eduardo de Avila contracted Espinoza for thermoplastic polyolefin (TPO) roofing, but as requirements changed, Avila replaced the contractor. Court ruled against Avila for improper termination of contract.

The article offers information on the impact of contract privity and the economic loss rule (ELR) on liability of engineers, citing example of the case Suffolk Construction Company v. Rodriguez and Quiroga Architects Chartered. Topics discussed include design professionals' motions to dismiss negligence claims from contractors; flawed design documents created by the design team Rodriguez and Quiroga Architects Chartered and Grimshaw Architects P.C.; and analysis of the negligence claims.

The article discusses the right to make use of the word 'engineer' by companies. It discusses the Alabama-based automotive service provider, Express Oil Change & Tire Engineers' lawsuit in a federal court seeking a declaration about the continuation of the use of the term 'engineer' in its company name, despite not having employed any tire engineers. The company reportedly filed the lawsuit against the Mississippi Board of Licensure for Professional Engineers and Surveyors.

The article discusses a court case involving a design professional who faced 37 million dollars in asserted damages at the Court of Appeals of New York. The case involved the construction of a forensic biology laboratory in downtown Manhattan by Perkins Eastman Architects PC, which was responsible for providing design, architectural, and engineering services along with jobsite supervision during construction.

The article presents information on the lawsuit Valley Paving Inc. v. Stanley Consultants Inc., in which a builder sued its engineer for inaccurately guessed amounts on a highway project. During the project, Valley Paving's excavation subcontractor required amounts of work which were much greater than estimated by Stanley.

The article presents the American court case Iliescu v. Steppan, which involves an interpretation of Nevada's lien structure in the context of the right of an architect to make a lien claim. An overview of the case is provided, along with Nevada Supreme Court's decision of invalidating architect's mechanic's lien. An analysis of the case is also given, including the importance for any lien claimant or design professional to follow mandatory requirements.

The article discusses the court case Taylor Morrison of Colorado, Inc. f/k/a Morrison Homes of Colorado, Inc. v. Terracon Consultants, Inc. with regard to a limitation of liability clause in an engineering and construction contract between residential developer Taylor Morrison and engineering consultant Terracon. The appeal proceedings of the case are discussed. A detailed analysis of the case is also presented.

The article discusses the court case In Port of Houston Authority of Harris County v. Zachry Construction Corporation, in which a contractor got money relief from owner who interfered in his work. Topics discussed include enforcement from court for no-damage-for-delay provision, complaint for active interference, and post judgment interest.

The article offers information on the court case Weitz Co. LLC v. Hands Inc. related to general contractors held subcontractors responsible for association in bidding process. Topics discussed include attainment of bids by Weitz from Hands for administration of mechanical work along with radiant heating; completion of the work by Weitz through deployment of other subcontractors under challenges of increased compensation; and assessment of the court over reliability of contractors for bid price.

The article discusses the Hensel Phelps Construction Co. v. Cooper Carry, Inc. which deals with a breach in the design obligations of architecture firm Cooper Carry Inc. (CCI) by failing to properly design a Marriott hotel. Topics include breach of the indemnity provision of the contract, summary judgment moved by CCI, and the three-year statute of limitations.

The article discusses the U.S. court case Penn Air Control Inc. v. Bilbro Construction Co. Inc. wherein the dispute focuses on the contract awarded to Bilbro Construction to renovate a facility for the Naval Facilities Engineering Command in Monterey, California. It mentions that the court denied the motion of the Ferguson Pape Baldwin Architects (FBPA) to dismiss the case agreeing that there was no contractual privity.

The article discusses the court case Edward Rusnak and Rebecca Rusnak v. Brent Wagner Architects. Topics include the allegations of the defendants that the architecture firm breached its duty and failed to render its service to supervise the construction of a house after the plaintiff filed a case due to the defendants' failure to pay under the terms of the contract. Also presented is the courts decision on the case.

The article presents the court case Chicago Housing Authority v. DeStefano and Partners Ltd. which focuses on compliance and violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). An appellate court ruled that a housing authority could not bring a lawsuit against its architecture firm for failing to ensure that its design conformed to ADA.

The article discusses the consequence of oral defamation or making negative statements about a competitor as a way to vie for a prospective client in the construction industry. It explores the lines of liability in a lawsuit stemming from the intentional derogatory statements. It provides a sample court case and verdict based on the interpretation of the law citing intentional interference with economic relations.

The article discusses the Pennsylvania Supreme Court case Gongloff Contracting LLC v. L. Robert Kimball & Associates, Architects & Engineers Inc. which deals with the negligent misrepresentation of L. Robert Kimball & Associates, an architecture and engineering firm, of the documents for the California University of Pennsylvania convocation center's design and construction. Topics include the subcontract of Whiting-Turner, early dismissal of the suit, and the final ruling.

The article discusses the liability issues involving architects and engineers in the U.S. It highlights the case William H. Gordon Associates Inc. v. Heritage Fellowship, United Church of Christ where engineering firm William H. Gordon Associates has been contracted by the church to design final site plans. It notes that the court decided that Gordon breached its responsibilities and that it blindly relied on the tank manufacturer's representations.

The article offers information on the court case, CG Schmidt Inc. v. Permasteelisa North America.

The article discusses whether a contractor's duty to continue performance is absolute in case of a dispute in a construction project in the U.S. and refers to the court case Vanguard Construction, Inc., v. U.S. related to the same. Topics include most contracts requiring the contractor to continue work pending resolution of a dispute, and the recent decision of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which ruled that contractor's obligation to perform and seek damages later was not absolute.

The article discusses the U.S. court case Coghlin Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. Gilbane Building Company in which the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, allows a constriction manager at risk (CMAR) to pursue an owner for design defects even if the CMAR was involved in the design process known as the Spearin doctrine. It mentions that Coghlin, Gilbane's electrical subcontractor, sued Gilbane, and the latter sued the state for breaching its implied warranty.

The article discusses the court case Old Colony Construction, LLC v. Town of Southington in which the Connecticut Supreme Court rules that the owner to be awarded liquidated damages following termination for convenience. Topics include the Court's ruling that the termination for convenience clause did not absolve contractor from paying liquidated damages for unexcused project delays and Old Colony Construction's contract with the town provided for liquidated damages of 400 dollars daily.

The article discusses the Massachusetts Appeals Court case Coghlin Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. Gilbane Building Co. regarding construction at Massachusetts's Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance. It mentions the request for increase in the cost of its subcontract due to alleged mismanagement by construction manager of Gilbane. It states that the court acknowledged the construction manager at risk (CMAR) for systems' design.

The article reports view on the recovery of attorney fees under Rule 45 of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) Construction Industry Arbitration Rules. It mentions that lawyers are compensated by their clients irrespective to the results of their case under the regulations. An overview of the case Lasco Inc. v. Inman Construction Corp., etal. is also presented.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court case North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), where FTC filed an administrative complaint against North Carolina board's actions to exclude non-dentists from the market of teeth whitening services. It informs that Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy rejected the notion of discouraging dedicated professionals from serving on boards because of the board's decision.

The article discusses the U.S. lawsuit Kiewit-Tumer v. Department of Veterans Affairs, wherein the U.S Department of Veteran Affairs turned down the proposal of construction contractor Kiewit-Tumer to adjust the firm target price for a construction project. It reveals that designing team of both the parties developed cost-cutting measures but VA refused to make any changes that would reduce costs or change the design.

The article discusses the U.S. district court case American Towers LLC v. BPI Inc. which deals with contract breaching. Topics discussed include the claim of American Towers on BPI for failing to consult a geotechnical engineer which resulted in road collapse, the denial of BPI's motion by the court on the fact that BPI did more than wait for American Towers' instruction and the court's decision for American Towers to prove the causation of BPI's failure to consult a engineer.

The article discusses judicial decision by the U.S. District court case for the Northern District of Alabama Otis Elevator Co. v. WG Yates & Sons Construction Co. for breaching its contract with manufacturers of elevator Otis Elevator Co. It mentions the ambiguity in the bidding documents. It also presents letter by the architect regarding the design intent and replacement of the escalators demanded by the airport.

The article discusses issues concerning the termination-for-convenience (T-for-C) clauses in construction contracts in the U.S. Topics covered include the history and provisions of the clause, an analysis of the court decision on the case Parlovecchio Building Inc. v. Charter County of Wayne Building Authority and the opinion that house owners should not use the clause to find a better commercial deal.

The article discusses the Supreme Court of Texas case Zachry Construction Corporation v. Port of Houston Authority of Harris County, Texas which overturned a ruling made by a Texas appeals court to enforce a no-damages-for-delay provision against Zachry Construction that jurors had refused to enforce. The Supreme Court of Texas cited five exceptions to the no-damages-for-delay clauses and use of evidence which proved the Port actively interfered with the contractor's work.

The article presents the court case in which the California Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the state appellate court, which claimed that the architects of a home development project have a duty of care to the homeowners. In the case Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP, the association filed a case against the condominium developer and other parties due to the defective homes they built.

The article discusses the court case The School Board of Broward County, Florida v. Pierce Goodwin Alexander and Linville concerning standard of care of building construction. Topics covered include the school board's filing of a breach of contract lawsuit because the design of the construction firm did not comply with the state building code and the court ruling that standard of care include delivery of code-compliance design plans.