Construction Law Insights

James G. Davis Constr. Corp. v. FFTJ, Inc., 841 S.E.2d 642 (Va. May 14, 2020)

On February 19, 2016, James G. Davis Construction Corporation (“Davis”), the general contractor, and H&2 Drywall Contractors (“H&2”) entered into a $1,269,396 subcontract with 10% retainage for H&2 to complete the drywall and metal framing for the project. H&2 entered into a Credit Application and Agreement with FTJ, Inc. f/k/a Ciesco Inc. (“FTJ”) for the purchase of materials. Renan Buendia, principal of H&2, personally guaranteed to pay FTJ any amounts owed by H&2. Davis, H&2, and FTJ entered into a joint check agreement, whereby: (i) FTJ would send invoices to Davis and H&2; (ii) Davis would write joint checks payable to H&2 and FTJ and deliver the checks to H&2; and (iii) H&2 would endorse the check and turn it over to FTJ.

Wasa Props., L.L.C. v. Chesapeake Bay Contrs., Inc., 103 Va. Cir. 423 (City of Chesapeake Cir. Ct. Dec. 11, 2019)

 In April 2015, Wasa Properties, L.L.C. (“Wasa”) and Chesapeake Bay Contractors, Inc. (“CBC”) executed a contract for CBC to complete utility work at Lake Thrasher (the “Contract”). Wasa alleged that CBC breached the Contract and caused $405,584.90 in damages by incorrectly installing water lines, which damaged other utility lines. The Contract contained the following (the “Indemnification Provision”):

Tingler v. Graystone Homes, Inc., 834 S.E.2d 244 (Va. Oct. 29, 2019)

In 2009, George and Crystal Tingler (the “Tinglers”) executed a construction contract with Graystone Homes, Inc. (“Graystone”) to construct a new home on property owned by a family run company, Belle Meade Farm, LLC (“Belle Meade”). The contract did not mention Belle Meade, but it was the owner of the land on which the home was built and it made the payments due under the contract to Graystone. The Tinglers claimed they entered into the contract on behalf of their principal, Belle Meade, and that Belle Meade was in privity of contract with Graystone. Alternatively, the Tinglers argued that Belle Meade was an intended third-party beneficiary.

Pole Green Dev. Co., LLC v. Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 785 Fed. Appx. 106 (4th Cir. Oct. 29, 2019)

Pole Green Development Company, LLC (“Pole Green”) sued Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (“Columbia Gas”) after Pole Green’s prospective agreement to purchase property for residential development fell through because of a pipeline easement held by Columbia Gas. In its amended complaint Pole Green asserted inverse condemnation, unlawful taking, breach of contract, and intentional interference. The district court dismissed the case and Pole Green appealed.

Krauss v. Apex Custom Homes, LLC, 2019 Va. Cir. LEXIS 1203 (Loudoun Cnty. Cir. Ct. Nov. 26, 2020)

On March 24, 2015, Paul and Holly Krauss (“Krausses”) contracted with Scott Prendergast (“Prendergast”) and Apex Custom Homes, LLC (“Apex Homes”) for the construction of a home (the “Home”) and with Daniel Morgan (“Morgan”) and Apex Custom Pools, LLC (“Apex Pools”) for the construction of a swimming pool at the Home (the “Pool”). Prendergast was the sole member of Apex Homes. Morgan was the sole member of Apex Pools. Apex Pools, through Morgan, used Apex Homes’ general contractor license, but neither Prendergast nor Apex Homes knew that Morgan used the general contractor’s license of Prendergast or that Morgan was unlicensed when Prendergast referred the Krausses to Apex Pools. Before the bench trial, Apex Pools filed for bankruptcy.

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