POWER OF BLOGS

Insight Center: Blogs

Massachusetts Appellate Court Holds That No-Damages-for-Delay Clause Does Not Bar Claim for Schedule Compression and Affirms Award of Total Cost Damages

Central Ceilings, Inc. v. Suffolk Constr. Co., Inc., 2017 Mass App. Lexis 36 (March 29, 2017).

Author: Jane Fox Lehman

5/23/2017

Read the full post at Constructlaw

Massachusetts Appellate Court Holds That No-Damages-for-Delay Clause Does Not Bar Claim for Schedule Compression and Affirms Award of Total Cost Damages

The Massachusetts State College Building Authority contracted with Suffolk Construction Company (Suffolk) to serve as the general contractor for the construction of dormitories at Westfield State University (the Project). Suffolk subcontracted with Central Ceilings, Inc. (Central) to install interior and exterior framing, drywall, and door frames for the Project.

In addition, Central’s start dates were consistently pushed back, while its completion dates remained the same, such that the time within which it had to perform was constantly compressed. Suffolk, whose contract provided for a bonus for completing the Project on time and liquidated damages for failing to complete the Project on time, advised Central that no time extensions would be granted. Suffolk essentially directed Central to accelerate by adding manpower to keep the Project on schedule, which also increased Central’s labor costs.

Data protection laws have changed, so we have revised our Privacy Policy.

CLOSE