Volume 2 - Number 40 | October 4, 2004 - Construction Claims Advisor

Sample Issue

Bookstore

Editorial Board

Construction Law Sites

Past Issues

Press Releases

Forums

You are here: Home » Volume 2 - Number 40 | October 4, 2004

Volume 2 - Number 40 | October 4, 2004

EDITOR'S NOTES | Issue 2-40: This issue marks our 45th issue since we started, which includes over 200 case summaries and articles. Seven more issues and we will have published a full year’s worth. We wish to thank you, our readers, and take this opportunity to bring you up to date with our survey results and plans for the future. The results are covered in more detail in a separate article, but basically we have met or exceeded your expectations, with the most prominent request being for more Tips and Techniques, for which we will gladly comply. This week’s cases include a constructive acceleration claim, two procedural cases involving a venue change and a statue of limitations on filing, and two bid protest cases.

FEDERAL APPELLATE COURT REJECTS CONSTRUCTIVE ACCELERATION CLAIM: A federal appeals court directed the Court of Federal Claims hear a case on constructive acceleration. Unfortunately for the contractor, the factual issues did not quite stack up to support its case.

COURT INVALIDATES CONTRACTUAL VENUE PROVISION: A California court of appeals allows the contractor to move a termination case to another county.

DRYVIT/EIFS SYSTEM FILED ONE WEEK TOO LATE: The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed a lower court opinion dismissing a homeowner’s claims against the home’s builder and the applicator of the Dryvit’s EIFS system because the claims were not filed within two years after the damage was discovered.