Posts tagged "1103617"

Central Ceilings, Inc. v. Suffolk Construction Company, Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-036-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030;   15-P-1117                                       Appeals Court   CENTRAL CEILINGS, INC.  vs.  SUFFOLK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. & others.[1]     No. 15-P-1117.   Suffolk.     October 7, 2016. – March 29, 2017.   Present:  Agnes, Maldonado, & Desmond, JJ.     Contract, Construction contract, Subcontractor, Damages.  Damages, Breach of contract, Attorney’s fees.  Practice, Civil, Attorney’s fees, Discovery.     Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on October 3, 2006.   The case was heard by S. Jane Haggerty, J.; an award of attorney’s fees was entered by her; and a motion for reconsideration was considered by Judith Fabricant, J.     Joel Lewin (John P. Connelly also present) for the defendants. Paul R. Mordarski (Thomas J. Fullam also present) for the plaintiff.     DESMOND, J.  After a jury-waived trial, a Superior Court judge entered judgment awarding the plaintiff, Central Ceilings, Inc. (Central), $ 321,315 on its breach of contract claim for damages for loss of productivity incurred while acting as a subcontractor for defendant Suffolk Construction Company, Inc. (Suffolk), on a large construction project.  This case is before us on cross appeals. Suffolk challenges the judgment,[2] claiming, inter alia, that Central’s claim was barred by the “no-damages-for-delay” clause in the subcontract between the parties, and that the judge erred in ruling that Central had established its claim for damages by the “total cost” method.  Suffolk further challenges the judge’s award of $ 471,682 in attorney’s fees to Central, claiming that it was wrongfully denied discovery and a hearing prior to the entry of that award. On its cross appeal, Central challenges the judge’s holding that the “pay-if-paid” clause in the subcontract barred it from recovering $ 82,538 from Suffolk for unpaid change order requests (CORs).  For the reasons set forth herein, the judgment on the merits entered on December 20, 2013, and the amended judgment for attorney’s fees entered on September 9, 2014, are affirmed. Background.  First, we set forth the basic material facts, drawing extensively from the trial judge’s thoughtful and thorough findings of fact, rulings of law, and decision.  The Massachusetts State College Building Authority (MSCBA) hired Suffolk to serve as general contractor on the construction of three interconnected dormitories at what is now known as Westfield State University (the project).  As the dormitories were to be ready for occupancy by students arriving for the fall semester in 2005, the contract […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - March 29, 2017 at 6:26 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , , ,