Construction Law Insights

White Oak Power Constructors v. Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Sys. Ams., Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109637, 2020 WL 3414682 (E.D. Va. June 22, 2020)

The Wildcat Point Generation Facility, a nominal 1,000 megawatt combined-cycle natural gas fired power plant in rural Maryland, includes two gas turbines, associated generators, and related components supplied by Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems Americas, Inc. (“Mitsubishi”). The Equipment Purchase Agreement (“EPA”) between Mitsubishi and the power plant owner was subsequently assigned to the engineer-procure-construct contractor, White Oak Power Constructors (“White Oak”), a joint venture between PCL Industrial Construction Company and engineering firm Sargent & Lundy LLC. The EPA included several liquidated damages provisions under which Mitsubishi would pay for delays in document deliveries, equipment deliveries, and substantial

Krevskop v. Town Council (In re July 17, 2017 Decision of the Bd. of Zoning Appeals), 2020 Va. Cir. LEXIS 101 (Faifax Cnty. Cir. July 24, 2020)

Julia Kreyskop and Brian Joseph Buyniski (“Petitioners”) live at a home in Vienna, Virginia that was located at the corner of Scott Circle Southwest and Cottage Street. Vienna Town Code § 18-33.E requires the following setbacks: (i) 12’ on side yards bordering other buildings or dwellings; (ii) 25’ on side yards bordering a street; (iii) 35’ rear yards; and (iv) 25’ front yards. Petitioner have a rear deck. The left portion of the deck encroaches into the rear yard setback by 7.4 feet, but was permissible because taxes were paid on it in excess of 15 years. The Petitioners requested a variance so they could replace the right-hand portion of the deck with an enclosed 12.3’x14’ screened porch, which would encroach 10.8’ into the rear yard setback. In Petitioners’ application for a variance, they noted that the house was built diagonally on the lot in 1959, the lot is wider than it is deep, the corner of the house closest to the rear property line was 35.7’ away from the property line, and the other sides of the house would either violate the setback requirements or be challenging due to existing gas, cable, power lines, and other easements. On July 17, 2019, a public

Mendes v. Beahm, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111986, 2020 WL 3473656 (W.D. Va. Jun. 25, 2020)

Plaintiff Nelson Mendes purchased waterfront property in Warren County, Virginia, in May 2017 with plans to open a tree nursery and eventually build a residence. Mendes’s contractors began to clear trees and other obstructions, and Mendes built a greenhouse himself. A month later, the Warren County Building Inspection Department (“Building Department”) issued a stop work order and instructed Mendes to obtain a land disturbance permit. When Mendes sought clarification, the Building Department informed him that a neighbor reported Mendes’s contractors removing vegetation and tossing it into the river, which prompted a Virginia DEQ site inspection. The neighbor later recanted her story and admitted her false report was a result of her being upset by

Sanders v. Wayne, 2020 Va. Cir. LEXIS 25 (Washington Cnty. Cir. Ct. Feb. 20, 2020)

According to Mark Sanders, Gregory Roberts, and Larissa Roberts (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”), Plaintiffs’ vehicle was slowing to avoid striking Joshua Mathis (“Mathis”) after Mathis, in operating the vehicle in front of Plaintiffs’ vehicle while in the course of his employment with Lakeside Ready Mix, LLC (“Lakeside”), slowed to turn left into a work zone without signaling. At that time, Guillermo Sanchez-Rivera’s (“Rivera”) vehicle and Alan Smith’s (“Smith”) vehicle collided with the Plaintiffs’ vehicle and each other. The Plaintiffs’ alleged that Mathis, Rivera, and Smith negligently and recklessly operated their vehicles by following too closely, failing to keep a proper lookout, failing to signal when turning, and stopping abruptly. With respect to the work zone, the Plaintiffs’ alleged that Orders Construction Company, Inc. (“Orders”) was under contract with the Virginia Department of Transportation (“VDOT”) as the general contractor and that Orders hired

Robinson v. McMurtrie (In re Peak 3 Constr., LLC), 2020 Bankr. LEXIS 833, 2020 WL 1696102 (Bankr. E.D. Va. Mar. 31, 2020)

In September 2015, Daniel McMurtrie (“McMurtrie”) and Peak 3 Construction, LLC (“Peak”) entered into a contract (the “Contract”) for Peak to renovate McMurtrie’s residence (the “Project”). Initial progress on the Project was delayed by incomplete demolition by a different contractor. Throughout Peak’s performance of the Project, the scope of the Project changed, with various changes and additions requested by McMurtrie, sometimes through Larry Cooper (“Cooper”), whom Peak perceived to be McMurtrie’s liaison, and sometimes through Mary Catlett (“Catlett”), the interior designer on the Project. These changes, in conjunction with the demolition delay, caused Peak to realize in mid-November that the Project could not be completed by Christmas. On February 9, 2016, Peak emailed McMurtrie outlining the job costs, both completed and remaining costs, based on the current scope of work. McMurtrie neither objected nor terminated the Contract. Peak continued work on the Project and, on February 15, 2016, sent McMurtrie a $106,432.45 invoice (the “First Invoice”).

Office Hours

Mon - Fri 8:30 am - 5 pm
Sat Closed
Sun Closed

Contact Us

925 Main St., Suite 300 
Lynchburg, VA 24504 

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
pldr law firm facebook icon