Catagory:The Americas

Belanger v. N. Am. Specialty Ins. Co., 504 F. 3d 147 (1st Cir. 2007)

In this case, North American Specialty Insurance Company, a surety, brought a suit against its principal contractor, Seacoast Crane Company and Seacoast’s owners (the “Belangers”) to recover monies paid out under a performance bond.  NAS had issued the performance bond on behalf of Seacoast to build a corporate headquarters project for DCC Development Corporation.  In the suit, initiated in the United States District Court for the District of Maine, NAS asserted claims for indemnification, breach of contract and specific performance based on a judgment that was entered against NAS and Seacoast, and against the Belangers for breach of contract in connection with the DCC project. Read More

Prof’l Servs. Group v. Town of Rockland, 515 F. Supp. 2d 179 (D. Mass. 2007)

In this case, the Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a decision concerning the subversion of the public procurement process by a bidder.  The defendant-contractor colluded with a public official of the plaintiff-town to ensure that it would be the only bidder and would thereby receive the bid at an artificially high price.  The court held that this collusion violated the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act (M.G.L. c. 93A), and that the town was entitled to double damages pursuant to that that statute because the contractor’s violations were knowing and willful.  The contractor attempted to escape liability by arguing that the employee who was responsible for the bidding and collusion was a rogue employee.  The court rejected this argument and found that the contractor’s employee was acting within the scope of his employment and therefore the contractor was liable by the doctrine of respondeat superior. Read More

Great N. Ins. Co. v. Architectural Env’ts, Inc., 514 F. Supp. 2d 139 (D. Mass. 2007)

On a motion for summary judgment, the Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts held that for the purposes of the statute of repose, the limitation period began running when the temporary certificate of occupancy was issued on the building in question. 

In this case, a fire occurred at a commercial property as a result of an electrical malfunction.  The occupant’s insurer sued the mechanical and electrical contractor responsible for design and renovation of the building.  The court held that the statute of repose began to run on the date that the temporary certificate of occupancy was issued on the building, and not at the later date when the permanent certificate was issued.  Thus, the plaintiff’s claims for negligence and implied warranties were time-barred by the six-year statute of repose.  Express warranties, however, were not subject to the statute of repose and those claims survived summary judgment.

Site, Inc. v. Peabody Constr. Co., Inc., 2007 WL 2458482 (Mass. App. Ct. Aug. 30, 2007) (Unpublished)

In this case, the Appeals Court affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion to vacate an arbitration award.  The defendant general contractor, Peabody Construction Company, refused to pay the plaintiff subcontractor, Site, Inc. on a subcontract after terminating the subcontractor prior to completion of the job.  The case went to arbitration.  After considering extensive evidence and testimony, the arbitrator found that the general contractor’s failure to make timely payment was a material breach of the subcontract.  Although the arbitrator found that general contractor’s material breach of the subcontract excused any subsequent failure by the subcontractor to perform its obligations under the subcontract, the arbitrator found that the subcontractor was not entitled to payment for the work it performed because the subcontractor “had not completely [and satisfactorily] performed all of its obligations under the subcontract.” Read More