Tag:New Jersey

N. Plainfield Bd. of Educ. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 2008 WL 2074013 (D.N.J. May 15, 2008)

In this case, the Board of Education had been sued by various contractors and subcontractors for breach of contract and various tort claims, and sought specific performance from Zurich American Insurance Co. to defend against the claims under their insurance policy.  Zurich denied coverage, citing the policy provision excluding from coverage all claims arising from breach of contract.  The court found that that this exclusion covered any action that alleged a breach of duty, neglect, error, misstatement or omission and that grew out of or had substantial nexus with breach of contract, or any injury that would not have occurred but for the contract breach.  Thus, Zurich was justified in refusing coverage and indemnity for those claims, and the court granted Zurich’s motion for summary judgment against the Board.

Titan Stone, Tile & Masonry, Inc. v. Hunt Constr. Group, Inc., 2008 WL 2038857 (D.N.J. May 12, 2008)

In this case, the court ruled on a motion for reconsideration of a finding that a subcontractor who defaulted on performance, but not the surety, was responsible for the attorneys fees of the general contractor, Hunt Construction Group.  The court applied the principle that a surety can be held liable only in accordance with the strict terms of its undertaking, and found that the surety bond in this case did not specifically provide for reimbursement of attorneys fees.  Hunt argued that the obligations of Titan under the performance bond should be coextensive with those of Titan under the agreement.  The court rejected this argument as inconsistent with the purpose of a performance bond, which is to provide the general contractor with the funds to complete the project upon the default of the subcontractor, not to make the general contractor whole.

CZAR, Inc. v. Heath, 939 A.2d 837 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2008)

In this case, a homeowner brought claims against a custom kitchen contractor under New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act.  During the construction of a new home, the homeowner had contracted directly with a custom kitchen contractor for the installation of custom kitchen cabinets, interior doors, a front door, and certain moldings.  The trial concluded that the home improvement practice regulations found in N.J.A.C. 13:45A-16.1 to 16.2 were not applicable to plaintiff and, therefore, dismissed the CFA claims.  The trial court reasoned that the kitchen contractor’s work was not a “home improvement” within the meaning of the regulation because the construction and installation of the doors, cabinets, and moldings were part of the construction of a new residence and, therefore, excluded from the definition of “home improvement.”

Read More

United States ex rel. E&H Steel Corp. v. C. Pyramid Enters., Inc., 509 F.3d 184 (3d Cir. 2007)

This litigation arose after a steel supplier on a U.S. government construction project asserted a claim against a payment bond issued by the general contractor (to which it had no contractual privity) pursuant to the Miller Act (40 U.S.C. § 3131).  Because the Miller Act limits the availability of such bond claims to either entities in contractual privity with the bond issuer (the GC) or those entities having contractual privity with a "subcontractor,” the key issue was whether the entity with which the supplier contracted was a “subcontractor.”  The District Court for the District of New Jersey, applying a number of a factors, determined that it was not a subcontractor and dismissed the bond claim.  

Read More

In re Kara Homes, Inc., 374 B.R. 542 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2007)

On an issue never before addressed in a published opinion, a U.S. Bankruptcy Court decided an issue critical to the New Jersey Lien Law.  A major New Jersey based residential home building group (the “Debtors”), owning several large single-family home development projects, entered numerous agreements with various subcontractors who provided goods and services on the projects.  When the Debtors failed to pay, the subcontractors took steps to protect their rights under the New Jersey Construction Lien Law.  However, most of the Debtors initiated Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings before the subcontractors could fully complete all of the Lien Law’s requirements.  The Debtors then filed adversary proceedings to determine the extent, validity, and priority of any liens.

Read More

Alaska Servs., Inc. v. County of Morris, 2007 WL 2385941 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Aug. 23, 2007)

In this case, a county solicited bids for laundry services for a county-run nursing care facility pursuant to New Jersey’s Local Public Contracts Law (“LPCL”) (N.J.S.A. 40A:11-1, et seq.).  The county refused to award the contract to the lowest bidder, finding that the bid was “materially non-responsive," and because the services were such that the county could utilize the LPCL’s “competitive contracting” provision (an exception for certain “special” goods and services permitting a public entity to consider additional factors beyond the “lowest responsible bidder” standards set by the LPCL).  The county awarded the contract to another bidder.

Read More

Gale v. New Jersey Iron, Inc., 2007 WL 2385948 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Aug. 23, 2007)

This case arose after an employee of a sub-subcontractor sued the project owner, the general contractor (“GC”) and the subcontractor for negligence over personal injuries he sustained after falling from a steel beam at the construction site.  All issues settled except for the owner’s cross-claim against the GC alleging that the GC breached its contract when it failed to obtain insurance coverage that protected the owner from its own negligence.

The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the claim.  Initially, the court determined that the “insurance” section of the contract did not specifically require such insurance and was more consistent with the industry standard requiring a GC to provide insurance to indemnify an Owner against acts of negligence by the GC or a subcontractor.  Moreover, the "indemnity” section of the contract merely required the GC to indemnify the owner only to the extent caused by the GC, a subcontractor or anyone employed by them.

Kane Builders, Inc. v. S. New Jersey Bldg. Laborers Dist. Council, LIUNA, 2007 WL 2416470 (D.N.J. Aug. 21, 2007)

In this case, a labor union brought various claims against a general contractor (“GC”) stemming from a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) entered between the Union and the GC.  Briefly stated, the union asserted a multi-million dollar claim for unpaid employer contributions that the GC would have been obligated to pay, had it not violated the CBA by not using union laborers on over 100 “covered projects” in New Jersey.  Relying on ERISA’s record keeping provision (29 U.S.C. § 1145), the union argued that the GC bore the burden of proving which hours worked were not subject to contribution. 

The court, following 11^th Circuit precedent, adopted the burden-shifting approach.  It determined that the union had satisfied its initial burden of setting forth sufficient evidence concerning the amount and extent of work performed through an expert auditor’s report.  The court ruled that, at that point, the burden of proof shifted to the GC to disprove, or raise an issue of fact, regarding the extent of work performed on covered projects and/or whether covered employees performed the work.  Because the GC was unable to produce any records to disprove the union’s claim, the court entered partial summary judgment on the issue of damages.

Capital Safety, Inc. v. State, 848 A.2d 863, 369 N.J. Super. 295 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2004)

In this case, an asbestos removal contractor brought suit against the state for delay damages due to delays cause by the state’s inability to relocate workers to permit asbestos removal.  The court, in this matter, enforced the contract’s no-damages-for-delay clause, finding that such clauses are enforceable even if the delay is the result of the public entity’s “error of judgment, lack of effort, or lack of complete diligence.”
 

Craft v. Stevenson Lumber Yard, Inc., 843 A.2d 1076, 179 N.J. 56 (2004)

In this matter, a project owner filed a complaint demanding the dismissal of a construction lien claim filed by a supplier (Stevenson) after the contractor, who was responsible for paying Stevenson, walked off the job.  The contractor owed Stevenson for multiple past unrelated projects. Therefore, when the contractor provided payments to Stevenson from the plaintiff’s payments, without specifying the project, Stevenson automatically credited the payments to the oldest outstanding invoices, not to those associated with the plaintiff’s project.  The supplier subsequently filed a construction lien claim against the real property.  

The court found that the supplier could not arbitrarily assign the payments to different accounts, but rather must apply the contractor’s payments to the individual project account from which payments were derived.  Therefore, the supplier was precluded from filing the lien claim due to its failure to allocate the contractor’s payments to the proper accounts.