Schools
We represented a general contractor in a significant claim against the School Board of Orange County, Florida, arising out of delays to the completion of the largest school project undertaken by the Board at that time ($25 million). The Board held large sums in retainage and counterclaimed for liquidated damages and amounts for allegedly defective construction ranging from the synthetic hardcoat stucco to the mechanical and electrical systems. Our client's claim was successfully mediated (resulting in a multi-million dollar settlement), even with the inherent difficulties of settling with an elected board subject to public meetings. Notwithstanding the late completion of the project, at a time when the Board had nowhere to place the students, we persuaded the architect's insurance carrier, and Board representatives, that design deficiencies were the cause of the problems. We also handled several subcontractor claims arising from the same project.
We represented a general contractor and its surety on several disputes arising out of the construction of a middle school in North Carolina. Our client acted as one of four multiple prime contractors, performing the civil work and serving as "project expediter," which involved coordination and scheduling. The project was delayed one full year, and the school district withheld over $700,000 from our client's contract. The major issues to be determined were responsibility for delay and apportionment of liability among the owner, the other prime contractors, and five of our client's subcontractors. All of the several claims and disputes were settled without arbitration or trial (except one subcontractor dispute which was arbitrated, and another subcontractor dispute which is still pending and is scheduled for arbitration).
We represented a contractor in a claim against the state of Tennessee arising out of the construction of a hotel and meeting facility for Memphis State University. Two mediation sessions resulted in a mediated settlement for $400,000 payment by the state.
We represented a national general contractor with a claim against a Tennessee school district arising out of the construction of a high school. When the school district refused to grant the contractor time extensions that the contractor claimed as a result of excusable delays, the contractor accelerated its performance in order to open school by the scheduled start date. After conducting a two-week arbitration, the contractor recovered its acceleration damages, and the owner recovered nothing on its counterclaim.
The Firm represented a Florida general contractor in connection with a claim against the local school board stemming from the separate site contractor’s failure to maintain the project site during construction. During construction, the building construction contractor experienced significant delays and disruptions as a result of horrendous site conditions, forcing it to add additional masonry crews and equipment in order to maintain the schedule after the school board refused to grant time extensions stemming from the deplorable site conditions. After filing suit against the local school board, the case settled with the contractor receiving a substantial settlement for the claims it had asserted.
We represented a subcontractor asserting acceleration claims against a construction manager in connection with two Georgia schools, an elementary school and a high school. After conducting discovery, the construction manager submitted an extensive summary judgment motion to the federal district court, claiming that the subcontractor’s notices were inadequate and that its case should be dismissed. The school board similarly filed a summary judgment motion against the construction manager in connection with the construction manager’s third-party claims against the school board, claiming that the construction manager’s notices to the owner were defective for the same reasons that the construction manager had articulated in its motion to dismiss the subcontractor’s claims. The federal district court denied the construction manager’s motion for summary judgment as against the subcontractor, concluding that there were substantial issues of fact, but the district court granted the owner’s motion as against the construction manager. Subsequent to the trial court’s rulings on the motions, the subcontractor was able to reach a consensual settlement with the construction manager for a substantial sum.
The Firm represented the construction manager in connection with a project located at a medical school in Georgia. The general contractor sued both the owner as well as the construction manager, claiming that it was entitled to substantial additional sums as a result of changes and other conditions that it had encountered during construction. The construction manager advised the contractor that it was bound by decisions that had been made pursuant to a disputes clause contained in the contract between the owner and the general contractor which bound the general contractor to the decisions made by the construction manager. The owner and construction manager were then able to negotiate a favorable settlement prior to the time that the trial court ruled on the validity of the construction manager’s decision as a binding arbitration award.
The Firm represented a Florida contractor in connection with the construction of quasi public dormitories that were being constructed on a site adjacent to a major university in the State of Florida. When the private developer that was developing the facility experienced financial difficulties during construction, the contractor asserted claims against the lender, contending that it had agreed to pay for the balance of completion costs. After defeating the lender’s motion to dismiss before the trial court, the contractor settled its claims against the lender in a two-day mediation.
We represented an electrical subcontractor in a claim for breach of contract based on delays in the project. The school district moved for summary judgment, arguing that our claims were barred by the express language of the contracts. The major issue to be determined was whether the “No Damages for Delay” clause was enforceable under the particular circumstances of the case. We argued successfully that the “No Damages for Delay” clause did not apply because we did not promise to prevent delays caused by other contractors, or by the school district. The Court denied the school district’s motion for summary judgment and we were able to achieve a successful settlement for our client.
|
 |
|