PRACTICE AREA(S): Construction, Construction Litigation, General Litigation
CLIENT / INDUSTRY: Health Care Provider
ATTORNEY(S): Pete Comodeca; Tony Stringer
Situation Summary
Calfee was retained by a large health care provider in a dispute involving the construction of a complex critical care structure. During the course of the project, an issue arose concerning the electrical trade contractor’s scope of work. Specifically, the electrical contractor claimed that the contract did not require it to install all required wiring in conduit. The hospital disagreed and required the installation. The work was completed, but the electrical contractor then filed an arbitration claim against the hospital, alleging that the work fell outside the scope of its contract and sought damages in the amount of the work.
Calfee Approach
Calfee’s strategy was to emphasize the specific language of the contracts in question and the required tie-in of the new construction to the existing facility. Calfee attorneys focused their efforts on scrutinizing various provisions of the parties’ contract to establish that the work was, in fact, required. At the arbitration hearing, Calfee relied solely on effective cross-examination of the electrical contractor’s witnesses and the contract documents to defeat the claim.
Resolution
After the hearing, the arbitrator issued an award in favor of the hospital and against the electrical contractor.
The results described in each case study are dependent on the specific factual and legal circumstances of the matter described, and constitute neither legal advice nor a guarantee of similar results with respect to any other matter.