Construction Law Insights

Fluor Enters. v. Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Sys. Ams., Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65470, 2019 WL 1620755 (E.D. Va. April 16, 2019)

In February of 2012, Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems Americas, Inc. (“Mitsubishi”) entered into a Turbine Supply Agreement (“TSA”) with Virginia Electric and Power Company (“VEPCO”) to sell turbine generators to VEPCO for a power generating facility (the “Brunswick Project”). In July of 2012, VEPCO contracted with Fluor Enterprises, Inc. (“Fluor”) for Fluor to construct the Brunswick Project (the “Fluor Contract”). Around the same time, VEPCO assigned the TSA to Fluor through a Partial Assignment, Assumption, and Coordination Agreement (“Assignment Agreement”), but VEPCO retained the obligation to pay Mitsubishi per the terms of the TSA. Both the TSA and the Assignment Agreement contained jury trial waiver provisions.

Henderson v. Senior Living Choices of Va., Inc., No. CL17-1634 (Chesterfield Cnty. Cir. Ct. Apr. 4, 2019)

Defendant owner Senior Living Choices of Virginia, Inc. (“SLC”) retained plaintiff contractor Henderson, Inc. (“Henderson”) to manage a major $42 million expansion and renovation of the Brandermill Woods assisted living facility in Chesterfield County, Virginia. In June 2017, Henderson sued SLC for breach of contract in the amount of $1.4 million, including “failing to obtain the required permits and respond to requests and proposed change orders.” SLC counterclaimed for Henderson’s alleged “failing to obtain required permits, failing to properly manage the project” and for unnecessary charges. SLC alleged its damages for delay in completion, loss of revenue, and other costs in the amount of $7.1 million.

W. World Ins. v. Air Tech, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53683, 2019 WL 1434666 (W.D. Va. Mar. 29, 2019)

In February of 2015, Air Tech, Inc. (“Air Tech”) entered into a subcontract with Hall’s Construction Corp. (“Hall’s Construction”) to supply a Solvent Recovery Chiller (the “Chiller”) as part of a construction project Hall’s Construction had undertaken for BAE Ordinance Systems, Inc. The Chiller was delivered and installed. Thereafter, the Chiller failed, which resulted in Hall’s Construction having to replace the Chiller. In February of 2017, Hall’s Construction sued Air Tech in state court (the “State Court Action”). In August of 2017, Hall’s Construction amended its complaint to add Johnson Controls, Inc. (“Johnson Controls”) as a defendant. Western World Insurance Company (“Western World”) had issued a commercial insurance policy to Air Tech with

JPMCCM 2010-C1 Aquia Office LLC v. Mosaic Aquia Owner, LLC, 101 Va. Cir. 34, 2019 Va. Cir. LEXIS 70 (Stafford Cnty. March 18, 2019)

In 2007, RAMCO Virginia Properties, LLC (“RAMCO Virginia”) launched the Aquia Office Center project (the “Project”) and bought the land to re-develop into a mixed-use development for office, retail, and residential space. On May 13, 2010, to attract businesses, RAMCO Virginia developed a Reciprocal Easement Agreement (“REA”) to govern property rights. The REA required the Project’s Administrator to maintain common areas. Under the REA, each business owner is charged with paying its fair portion of the common area maintenance (“CAM”) charges and abiding by the REA’s requirements for building and developing the property.

Source America v. United States Dep’t of Educ., 368 F. Supp. 3d 974 (E.D. Va. March 15, 2019)

The dispute revolves around the procurement of a contract for services to be performed in The Department of the Army’s (“Army”) dining facilities at Fort Riley, Kansas. The Army contracts for two different types of services in its dining facilities, Full Food Services (“FFS”) and Dining Facility Attendant (“DFA”) services. The Army defines FFS as “a contract that covers those activities that comprise the full operation of an Army dining facility” and DFA services as “those activities required to perform janitorial and custodial duties within dining facilities.” In 2006, the Army awarded the Kansas Department for Children and Families (“Kansas”) a FFS contract pursuant to the Randolph-Sheppard Act (“RSA”). As required by the RSA, Kansas awarded the contract to a blind vendor. In 2011, the Army awarded Kansas a follow-up contract for the provision of FFS that was scheduled to expire in August 2015. Thereafter, the Army determined that it no longer needed a FFS contract because Army soldiers could perform the duties. However, because Army regulations prohibit soldiers from performing DFA services, the Army was required to contract out DFA services.

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