Recent Court Decisions
Otis Elevator v.
Westchester,
50 Mass. App. Ct. 712 (2001)
The Appeals Court ruled an elevator subcontractor on a public project could recover against the c. 149, §29 payment bond even though the subcontractor did not file suit until more than one year after the Project was completed and occupied. The subcontract contained an extended performance requirement. It required the subcontractor to provide one year of maintenance after project substantial completion. The Court ruled that because the maintenance work was part of the subcontractor's obligation, the subcontractor's bond suit was timely as long as it was filed within one year after the sub last performed the required maintenance.
J.F. White Contracting v. Mass. Port,
51 Mass. App. Ct. 811 (2001)
The Appeals Court ruled that c. 30, §39M did not prohibit alternative bidding. Mass Port invited bids for renovations to the Mystic River Bridge, and required each bidder to submit two bid prices based on the use of alternative materials. After bids were received, Mass Port decided which of the two materials was to be used, and awarded to the low bidder for the selected material. White participated in the bidding, but when it lost, claimed the bid procedure was illegal. The Court ruled the bidding was legal and upheld the award.
R.W. Granger v. J&S Insulation,
435 Mass. 66 (2001)
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed an award of multiple damages under c. 93A, §11 to subcontractor J&S, on a public project, against payment bond surety USF&G which failed to promptly pay amounts due under the bond. A jury had awarded J&S a substantial subcontract balance against general contractor Granger which did not pay it. J&S made demand on USF&G who failed to investigate, and, after a considerable delay, made a lowball offer. The Court ruled USF&G acted unfairly and violated fair settlement claim practices.
This
newsletter is intended to provide general information of interest to the
construction industry. It is not intended to provide specific legal advice or
to address fact specific issues. For that you should consult your legal
counsel. Corwin & Corwin LLP assumes no liability in connection with the
use of this newsletter. The Supreme Judicial Court may consider this material
advertising.
©1992-2001 Corwin & Corwin LLP. All rights reserved