Court: SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS Citation: 352 Mass. 174 Parties: PHILIP CHIAPPISI & others1 vs. GRANGER CONTRACTING CO. INC. & another.2 County: Suffolk Hearing Date: February 7, 1967 Decision Date: March 3, 1967 Judges: WILKINS, C.J., WHITTEMORE, CUTTER, KIRK, & SPIEGEL, JJ. Where a subcontractor required by his subcontract to fill with insulation the flutes in a metal deck of a building under construction discovered that the flutes in the deck as installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions were substantially larger, requiring more insulation material, than the flutes shown on a plan used by the subcontractor in submitting his bid, but made no written claim for “extra cost” until after completing his work on the deck, he was barred from recovering from the general contractor for such extra work by provisions of the subcontract that written notice of claim for “extra cost” resulting from “any instructions” must be given to the architect “before proceeding to execute the work” and that “No such claim . . . [should] be valid unless so made.” ————————- 1 The plaintiffs are the members of a partnership doing business as Chiappisi Brothers. 2 The codefendant is United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. of Baltimore, Maryland, surety on Granger’s bond securing payment for labor and materials.
Philip Chiappisi & Others vs. Granger Contracting Co. Inc. & Another, 352 Mass. 174Industry Knowledge Meets Legal Experience
Proven Counsel for Construction Projects