ILNews

Court rules in favor of subcontractor suing Fort Wayne

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals held Wednesday that a trial court properly granted summary judgment for a subcontractor seeking payment from the city of Fort Wayne after the general contractor working on the city park project declared bankruptcy.

In The City of Fort Wayne v. Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc d/b/a All-Phase Electric Supply Co., 02A04-1306-CC-283, the city argued All-Phase Electric Supply Co. did not comply with the notice requirements of I.C. 36-1-12-12, which provides a right of recovery to an unpaid subcontractor. General contractor Lights & Signals Inc. was awarded the park project but didn’t pay the more than $24,000 owed to All-Phase for its supplies. The city paid LSI 95 percent of the contract price.

All-Phase sent notice of the nonpayment to Fort Wayne Mayor Thomas C. Henry in April 2011. All-Phase said it had supplied materials through Feb. 7, 2011, making the notice timely under the 60-day window for unpaid claims. In All-Phase’s request for admissions, the city admitted that All-Phase supplied materials on or about Dec. 14, 2010, through Feb. 7, 2011. The city received the notice of claim April 6, 2011.

“As the moving party, All-Phase made a prima facie showing that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to its right to recover under Indiana Code section 36-1-12-12; the City failed to establish the contrary,” Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote. The judges found that the mayor, based on the language of this section, was properly served.

The judges also found the city is bound by its admission and cannot now try to exclude Feb. 7 from the range of time All-Phase provided materials.

“We agree that the admission establishes that All-Phase provided materials at some point or points during the date range, not throughout. But the City plainly admitted that All-Phase provided materials during the period from on or about December 14, 2010, through February 7, 2011,” Vaidik wrote.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT