Massachusetts

Subscribe to Massachusetts via RSS

The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) is slated to hear oral argument in G4S Technology LLC v. Mass. Technology Park Corp. on Monday, March 5, 2017 – a case with significant implications for construction litigation.

The dispute arises out of a $45 million public works project to build a 1200-mile fiber optic network bringing high speed Internet access to western Massachusetts. Appellee Massachusetts Technology Park Corporation (MTPC), a state development agency, awarded the contract to design and build the fiber optic network to Appellant G4S Technology LLC (G4S).
Continue Reading Oral Argument Preview: G4S Technology LLC v. Mass. Technology Park Corp.

In a recent decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court held that a mechanic’s lien filed by an unpaid supplier against a construction project, after the contractor through whom the materials were furnished filed for bankruptcy, was voidable. In re Linear Electric Co., No. 16-1477 (3rd Cir. March 30, 2017).  Specifically, the Court held that once the contractor filed for bankruptcy, the automatic stay barred the filing of a mechanic’s lien. While the supplier argued that the lien only encumbered property of the owner of the construction project, rather than property of the contract, the Court rejected that argument. The Court held that because the lien permitted recovery of money owed by the owner to the contractor, the lien acted to seize a portion of the contractor’s accounts receivable, which was now an asset of the bankruptcy estate.

Interestingly, the Court noted that the result might have been different if another state’s law governed. The Court acknowledged that in another case, In re Yobe Electric, Inc., 728 F.2d 207 (3rd Cir. 1984), the filing of a mechanic’s lien by a subcontractor did not violate the automatic stay provision because, under Pennsylvania law, the date of filing the mechanic’s lien related back to “the date of visible commencement upon the ground of the work of erecting or constructing the improvement.” In In re Linear, the Court applied New Jersey law, which contained no such relate back provision and, therefore, the mechanic’s lien was effective only as of the date of filing. 
Continue Reading The Enforceability of Mechanic’s Liens in Bankruptcy is Dependent on State Law

Construction projects are no stranger to delays and the inevitable resulting disputes. To allocate such risks, parties frequently include no damage for delay causes in their contracts. These provisions commonly provide that in the event of a delay the contractor’s remedy is limited to an extension of time. Given that there are often multiple causes of delays and a variety of types of delay damages it is critical that at the onset of a construction project the parties consider and properly allocate the risk of such delays and the potential resulting costs in the contract documents.

A recent Massachusetts Superior Court decision offers further insight into the importance of the contract in allocating the risk of delay damages. In Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Tenacity Constr., Inc. (Mass.Super, 2016), the court held that the terms of the contract precluded the contractor from recovering lost productivity and costs associated with work inefficiencies incurred while performing Winter work. The case arose from two distinct construction projects involving the plaintiff Cumberland Farms, Inc. (“CFI”) as the owner and Tenacity Construction, Inc.(“Tenacity”) as the contractor. Both projects suffered severe delays. As a result CFI granted Tenacity an extension of time and agreed to pay Tenacity time and materials for costs incurred while performing work during the Winter months. Prior to performing the work Tenacity claimed that reimbursement for time and materials would likely not fully compensate Tenacity for any lost productivity or inefficiency costs incurred during the Winter and that Tenacity may seek such costs at a later date. Although CFI did not deny this request it also did not agree to the request. A couple months after completing the Winter work, Tenacity sent CFI a letter claiming that it was entitled to an equitable adjustment of the contract price for lost productivity and inefficiency costs attributable to Winter conditions. In response CFI requested back-up information in support of Tenacity’s claim but ultimately denied the request.
Continue Reading Contract Barred Recovery of Lost Productivity Damages Suffered by Contractor