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. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT