CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Measure Of Damages for Breach of Construction Contract

October 18, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
How do you determine damages for a breach of a construction contract? If you are interested in pursing a breach of a construction contract action, this is something you NEED TO KNOW! The recent Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision in Cano, Inc. v. Judet, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D2083b (Fla. 4th DCA 201) explains:

Where a contractor breaches a construction contract, and the owner sues for breach of contract and the cost to complete, the measure of damages is the difference between the contract price and the reasonable cost to perform the contract. See Grossman Holdings Ltd. v. Hourihan, 414 So. 2d 1037, 1039-40 (Fla. 1982). In Grossman, the supreme court adopted subsection 346(1)(a) of the Restatement (First) of Contracts (1932), which it concluded was “designed to restore the injured party to the condition he would have been in if the contract had been performed.” Id. at 1039. In other words, the owner will obtain the benefit of his bargain [and this is known as benefit of the bargain damages]. But where there is a total breach of the contract as opposed to a partial breach, an injured party may elect to treat the contract as void and seek damages that will restore him to the position that he was in prior to entering into the contract or the party may seek the benefit of his bargain. See McCray v. Murray, 423 So. 2d 559, 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

In Judet, an owner entered into a fixed price contract with a contractor to repair damage from a lightning strike. The contract amount was $300,000 payable in $30,000 installments. A few months after the contractor commenced performance, the owner terminated the contractor because the owner learned the contractor had not obtained required electrical and plumbing permits. At this time, the owner had paid the contractor $90,000. The contractor recorded a $40,000 lien for an amount it claimed it was owed and filed a lawsuit to foreclose its construction lien. The owner counter-sued the contractor to recover a claimed over-payment and a disgorgement of monies for unpermitted work. The owner was NOT claiming benefit of the bargain damages, but rather, damages for the contractor’s total breach “to restore him to the position that he was in prior to entering into the contract.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

A Relatively Small Exception to Fraud and Contract Don’t Mix

April 01, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Remember all of my posts about how fraud and contract claims don’t usually play well in litigation? Well, as always with the law, there are exceptions. For instance, a well plead Virginia Consumer Protection Act claim will survive a dismissal challenge. A recent opinion out of the Alexandria division of the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia sets out another exception, namely so called fraudulent inducement. In XL Specialty Ins. Co. v. Truland et al, the Court considered the question of whether both a tort and contract claim can coexist in the same lawsuit when the tort claim is based upon the information provided to the plaintiff when that information proves false. As the courts of Virginia have held for years, only certain information and statements made pre-contract can be the basis for a fraud claim in the face of a contractual duty to perform. One type of statement that is not properly the subject of a fraud in the inducement type claim is sales talk or opinion. Such sales talk (for example claiming that your company is the best for the job) is not the subject of a fraud claim because it is not meant to be relied upon and that such talk is an opinion about future performance, not a false statement of present fact or intent. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Construction Defects Claims Can Be Limited by Contract Says Washington Court

February 11, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The firm Lane Powell has issued a construction law update on the recent Washington Supreme Court decision in Washington State Major League Baseball Public Facility District v. The Baseball Club of Seattle, LP. In the underlying construction defect claim, the Public Facility District found defects in the structural steel at Seattle’s Safeco Field. The contractor, Huber, Hunt & Nichols-Kiewit Construction Company claimed that construction claims could not be made, as it was barred by the statue of repose. Washington State has a six-year limitation on its statute of repose, however, the court noted that the contract contained a clause that, as noted by Lane Powell, “any alleged causes of action automatically accrue at substantial contemplation,” instead of within six years of substantial completion. The court concluded that the statue of repose could be rendered inoperative by contract. Further, the court found that these contract clauses pertained to subcontractors as well. Nevertheless, as PFD is a subdivision of the state, the court found that no statue of limitations could be appled. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Massive Wildfire Near Boulder, Colo., Destroys Nearly 1,000 Homes and Businesses

January 03, 2022 — Mark Shaw - Engineering News-Record
A wildfire, driven by wind gusts up to 105 mph, swept through 6,000 acres in suburban neighborhoods east of Boulder, Colo., destroying 991 homes and damaging 127 others in the towns of Superior and Louisville, according to estimates from the Boulder County sheriff’s office. Reprinted courtesy of Mark Shaw, Engineering News-Record Mr. Shaw may be contacted at shawm@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Video: Contractors’ Update on New Regulations Governing Commercial Use of Drones

September 01, 2016 — David R. Cook Jr. – AHHC Construction Law Blog
At a presentation before the AGC of Georgia, AHHC attorneys Mark Hanrahan, David Cook, and Chadd Reynolds covered “Contractors’ Update on New Regulations Governing Commercial Use of Drones.” View the presentation here: https://vimeo.com/177566370 On June 23, 2016, the Department of Transportation and Federal Aviation Administration issued new regulations regarding non-hobby and non-recreational civil operation of small unmanned aircraft systems. These regulations are intended to limit interference with federal airspace while advancing research and safety in commercial industries. They also addressed practical implications and how to comply by the August 29, 2016 deadline. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

---

No Coverage for Property Damage That is Limited to Work Completed by Subcontractor

April 25, 2012 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

The issue before the 11th Circuit was whether, under Florida law, a general contractor had coverage for a property damage claim limited to the defective work performed by a subcontractor, and not affecting any other portion of the project. The court found no coverage in Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co. v. Auchter Co., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5412 (11th Cir. March 15, 2012).



Amelia Island Company contracted with Auchter Company, a general contractor, for construction of an inn and conference room. Auchter subcontracted with Register Contracting Company to install the Inn’s roof. Pursuant to the Florida Building Code, installation of the roof required that it be able to withstand 110 m.p.h. winds.



Register completed installing the roof tiles in January 1998. Beginning in 2002, the tiles began dislodging from the roof. During the 2004 hurricane season, three hurricanes caused more tiles to come off the roof. Some of these tiles hit other tiles, cracking them.



In 2006, the parties went to arbitration over the costs of repairs for the roof.



Read the full story…



Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

 Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Toll Brothers Shows how the Affluent Buyer is Driving Up Prices

July 09, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
John McManus of Big Builder explained how prices per square foot are rising due to an increase in more affluent buyers: “Discretionary buyers—ones with access to cash treasure troves, robust and growing stock portfolios, sovereign wealth in search of anti-inflationary investment, and, for good measure, throw in a smattering of seven-figure income households flush with this year’s bonus payouts—are who, unit by unit, have electrified the housing market’s recovery on the heels of institutional bulk buyers of 2012 and early 2013.” Toll Brothers, according to McManus, “was, is, and will be the organization most committed to home buying’s discretionary buyer.” “Thanks to the demand for luxury, and for three- and four-bedroom places, we’re seeing pricing-per-square-foot get better and better the greater number of square feet we offer,” David Von Spreckelsen, Toll Brothers City Living division president, told Big Builder. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Erasing Any Doubt: Arizona FED Actions Do Not Accrue Until Formal Demand for Possession is Tendered

July 13, 2017 — Bob Henry - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Clearing up any lingering confusion, in Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC v. Woods, 767 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 4 (June 22, 2017), the Arizona Court of Appeals confirmed that residential forcible entry and detainer actions in Arizona accrue for statute of limitations purposes when a party entitled to possession makes a formal demand for return of possession not when the party could have made a demand for return of possession. In Carrington, the borrowers (the Woodses) remained in property that they had acquired in 2008 but then lost to foreclosure several years later. The original lender obtained title to the property at a trustee’s sale on February 16, 2010, but did not take any action to remove the Woodses at that time. Title to the property was then transferred through a series of transactions over the next six years. Ultimately, Carrington acquired the title and, in 2016, sent a formal “Notice to Vacate” the premises to the Woodses. After the Woodses failed to timely vacate pursuant to the demand, Carrington initiated an FED action to evict them from the property. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bob Henry, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Henry may be contacted at bhenry@swlaw.com

---