ILNews

Court upholds summary judgment in favor of New Castle

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed that a contractor and insurance company owe the city of New Castle more than $900,000 in damages and attorney fees for breaching a construction contract.

In Dave's Excavating, Inc. and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. City of New Castle, Indiana, No. 33A04-1104-PL-199, Dave’s Excavating and Liberty Mutual, which guarantied Dave’s performance with its performance bond, appealed the Henry Circuit Court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of New Castle in its lawsuit for breach of contract. Dave’s was awarded a contract for a sanitation project but stopped work at one point because of “differing subsurface conditions” in accordance with Section 4.03 of the contract. Dave’s sought review from the engineer of the project as to how to handle the unexpected physical conditions of the land. The project engineer responded that Dave’s should return to work, but Dave’s interpreted the contract that the engineer should conduct an investigation before Dave’s resumed work.

The dispute led to delays in work and caused New Castle to have to hire another contractor to finish the work. New Castle filed suit against Dave’s for breach of construction contract and sought payment of the performance bond in the amount of $427,524.54 from Liberty Mutual.

The appellate court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the city, finding that Dave’s did breach the contract. The contract required that the city “review the pertinent condition,” which it did when the engineer reviewed the claim and determined that Dave’s wasn’t entitled to a price or time adjustment and should continue working, wrote Judge Edward Najam. Despite what Liberty Mutual argued, the contract did not require the city to “investigate” the physical site.

With regards to the performance bond, Liberty Mutual failed to exercise any of its options to mitigate under the performance bond. The evidence showed Liberty Mutual did not act promptly to assert its rights under the performance bond, as was required under Section 4.4. Liberty Mutual also specifically directed the city to mitigate its damages, which it did by hiring another contract to complete the project.

The judges also upheld the award of attorney fees for the city.

 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  2. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  3. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

  4. "The commission will review applications and interview qualified candidates in March and April." Riiiiiight. Would that be the same vaulted process that brought us this result done by "qualified candidates"? http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774 Perhaps a lottery system more like the draft would be better? And let us not limit it to Indiana attorneys so as to give the untainted a fighting chance?

  5. Steal a little, and they put you in jail. Steal a lot, and they make you king. Bob Dylan ala Samuel Johnson. I had a very similar experience trying to hold due process trampling bureaucrats responsible under the law. Consider this quote and commentary:"'When the president does it, that means it is not illegal,' [Richard] Nixon told his interviewer. Those words were largely seen by the American public -- which continued to hold the ex-president in low esteem -- as a symbol of his unbowed arrogance. Most citizens still wanted to believe that no American citizen, not even the president, is above the law." BWHaahaaahaaa!!!! http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/When-the-president-does-it-that-means-it-is-not-illegal.html

ADVERTISEMENT