Shopping Cart (0) items Sign In

Construction Claims Monthly - Devoted exclusively to the problems of construction contracting since 1963

‹ Prev article: 
 

Overly Restrictive Delay Damages Clause Falls Apart In Court

Thursday, December 04, 2008 04:36 pm

 
Overly Restrictive Delay Damages Clause Falls Apart In Court

The difference between a no-damages-for-delay clause and one that simply limits delay damages may not be as wide as you think. If limits are overly restrictive, they're not likely to stand up in court -- at least not in Illinois.

Subcontractor Gurtz Electric Company (Gurtz) filed suit against contractor Gilbane Building Company (Gilbane) after encountering delays that hindered its performance on a U.S. Government Services Agency (GSA) building project in Chicago. Gurtz claimed it was unable to complete its work by the agreed-upon completion date because Gilbane: furnished defective plans/specifications, demanded work different from/additional to subcontractrequired work, interfered with access to the site, failed to coordinate with other subcontractors/suppliers so that Gurtz could perform efficiently, and was uncooperative. Plus, Gilbane refused to provide Gurtz with time extensions, which the subcontractor requested per the subcontract.

Gurtz sought $2 million in additional labor and supervision costs due to Gilbane's alleged contract breach.

Exceptions apply to limitation clause too, not just no-way clause

Gilbane fought back by arguing that the subcontract barred [...]

 
› Next article: 
 
Sign up now for Construction Claims Monthly Online! Your own virtual help desk of must-have techniques, tutorials, and how-to articles.
 
Join Now Construction Claims Monthly! Close