ILNews

Judges rule in favor of state in contract dispute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a trial court judgment against the state in a lawsuit filed by a subcontractor working on an airport project in Gary, holding the lower court erroneously determined the state had breached a contract between it and the subcontractor.

Subcontractor Continental Electric Co. sued the State of Indiana Military Department, State Armory Board of Indiana and Gov. Mitch Daniels for breach of contract and quantum meruit. The Indiana Military Department hired Larson-Danielson Construction Co. as contractor. Continental submitted a bid to Larson for $1,794,660 to “furnish and install the labor, material and equipment necessary for the electrical portion of the above project.”

At dispute is an alternative known as Alternate No. 2 relating to the installation of a generator at the facility and what was included in the bid. Continental contended to Larson that it included all labor and materials associated with the generator in its bid and that the company would need a change order of $207,000 because this was the amount above the cost for the generator quoted to Continental at the time of the bid.

After trying to resolve the dispute with the state to no avail, Continental sued the state actors, claiming it performed all work under the contract and hadn’t been paid all of the money owed. Continental also made a claim for quantum meruit, claiming the government accepted the benefits it provided, despite the opportunity to decline them, and that Continental had not been paid. It also argued it was denied due process because Daniels refused to respond to an appeal by Continental even though the main contract between Larson and the government provided a remedy and appeals process.

The trial court ruled Continental was allowed to recover under its unjust enrichment claim, that the state was in breach of contract by refusing to participate in the administrative appeal, and it awarded Continental nearly $207,000 plus costs.

The Court of Appeals found there was no contract between the state and Continental, so the lower court erroneously ruled the state breached a contract between the two. Any remedy Continental sought had to be against Larson as general contractor.

The judges also found there was no showing the state unjustly retained a benefit without paying for it. Despite what Continental claimed, there was no confusion in the main contract about what was or was not to be included in the agreement regarding the generator.

 

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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT