We all know what happens when we “ASS-U-ME” something. So, we should all carefully avoid assuming things unnecessarily.
The prime contractor described below recovered its costs by properly not assuming a duty. This required a distinction among duties that:
- must be done;
- should be done; or
- need not be done.
On a project for the Florida Department of Transportation, the Prime Contractor terminated its landscaping subcontractor for default after the obligatory 72-hour cure period passed. The Prime then promptly submitted a performance bond claim to the terminated sub’s surety. The Prime was obligated to and did wait the 15-day “grace period” for the surety to investigate and respond. However, when the surety failed to substantively respond, the Prime properly mitigated its damages by engaging a replacement subcontractor.
Upon completion of the replacement subcontractor’s work, the Prime submitted its recoverable costs to the defaulted sub’s surety. The surety denied payment by arguing the Prime failed to assist with the surety’s investigation of the default. The Court awarded summary judgment to the Prime finding it had no duty to assist with the surety’s investigation absent an express requirement, which was not included in the bond or subcontract.
The Court agreed that the Prime need not help the surety with the heavy lifting of investigating the sub’s termination for default.
Roads & Bridges | Award Upheld in W. Va. Caisson Dispute
AWARD UPHELD IN W.VA. CAISSON DISPUTE
Federal court reinforces high bar for overturning arbitration
In 2018, the West Virginia Department of Highways (DOH) awarded […]
Roads & Bridges |Let the Contract Lead
LET THE CONTRACT LEAD
Documents offer guidance needed to manage risk without derailing projects
Construction is an industry of managed risk. Whether the prices […]
Roads & Bridges | When is an Invoice Really an Invoice?
WHEN IS AN INVOICE REALLY AN INVOICE?
All court decisions are opinions. Appellate court decisions are typically made by a panel of three […]
Roads & Bridges | Clarifying Punitive Damages
CLARIFYING PUNITIVE DAMAGES
In June 2021, the South Dakota Department of Transportation contracted for the demolition and construction of a bridge on State […]
Roads & Bridges | When Approximate Means Assumed Risk
WHEN APPROXIMATE MEANS ASSUMED RISK
A New York Court Shows How Performance Specifications Can Leave Contractors Holding the Bag
Sometimes when we are told […]
Roads & Bridges | From Roman Arches to AI
FROM ROMAN ARCHES TO AI
Can Construction Evolve Without Risk?
The construction industry blends old with new. From ancient Roman archways and aqueducts and […]
Roads & Bridges | Caught in the Middle
CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE
New Mexico bridge case highlights the importance of written agreements for changes and delay compensation
In construction contracting, hope for […]
Roads & Bridges | Wait and It’s Waived
WAIT AND IT’S WAIVED
Roads & Bridges | Supreme Court Ruling on Arbitration Delay
Don’t wait to arbitrate! Progressing too far down the litigation […]
Roads & Bridges | Court Defines When Contractors Can Withdraw Due to Mistakes
BIDDING BLUNDER
Roads & Bridges | Court Defines When Contractors Can Withdraw Due to Mistakes
For over 125 years, the vast majority of jurisdictions […]
