New Jersey Construction Litigation Tag Archives

Published on: December 28, 2023

Claims of Negligence by an Engineer in New Jersey Construction Litigation Must be Supported by Expert Opinion in an Affidavit of Merit

New Jersey construction litigation often involves claims against contractors for improper construction or delay. Contractors, in turn, often argue as a defense, counterclaim or cross-claim that any delay or improper construction was the fault of the licensed professional on 6-300x225 the project, such as the engineer or the architect. Owners may also make these claims against architects and engineers directly. A trial judge in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Morris County recently addressed what is required to maintain such a claim in the case of Township of Parsippany-Troy Hills vs. Thomas Controls, Inc.

Background: The Lawsuit

The Township of Parsippany-Troy Hills sued Thomas Controls, Inc. over its work on construction improvements to the Township’s wastewater management treatment plan project. The Township had separately contracted with Keystone Engineering Group to act as engineers on the project. Thomas filed counterclaims against the Township and filed a third-party complaint against Keystone, suing it for alleged negligence, delay and professional malpractice. Keystone filed a motion to dismiss Thomas’s third-party complaint, arguing that the New Jersey Affidavit of Merit Statute requires that an affidavit of merit must be filed within 120 days of a defendant filing an answer when the defendant is a licensed professional and the claims are for negligence or professional malpractice. As a licensed engineer, Keystone argued that this law protected it because Keystone did not file an affidavit of merit within the required time frame.

Published on: October 19, 2023

New Jersey Construction Law Decision Examines Prompt Payment Act

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

One of the most difficult problems in New Jersey construction law for contractors and subcontractors is getting paid. Fortunately, a powerful remedy exists in the New Jersey Prompt Payment Act. A recent appellate court decision examined frameup-225x300 the New Jersey Prompt Payment Act in the case of Jo-Med Contracting Corp. vs. City of Linden.

Background

The City of Linden contacted Jo-Med to submit a bid for emergency repair work on approximately 20 feet of sewer repair, together with approximately 30 feet of related curb replacement. Jo-Med submitted a bid for $25,000 based on the job description provided by the City engineer; the bid stated that the cost would be higher if Jo-Med ran into unforeseen problems not apparent in the City’s description, in which case it would bill the City on a time and materials basis. Jo-Med was awarded the contract. The City’s engineer told Jo-Med’s owner that he would “work with him for additional charges to finish the work.”

Published on: November 8, 2021

New Jersey’s Prompt Payment Act is a Potent Tool for Subcontractors Trying to Get Paid, Appellate Division Confirms

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

New Jersey construction law involves many complex issues. However, one of the most common is also the most basic: Contractors and subcontractors getting paid for their work. The Appellate Division recently issued a published opinion on this topic in the case of JHC Industrial Services, Inc. vs. Centurion Companies, Inc., exploring one of the most potent tools which contractors and subcontractors can use construction to get paid: New Jersey’s Prompt Payment Act.

Background: The JHC Case

JHC Industrial Services, Inc. subcontracted to do demolition work on a project for Centurion Companies, Inc., which had in turn subcontracted with the general contractor to perform the work. JHC performed the work in full, and the general contractor accepted the work and paid Centurion in full. However, Centurion withheld $30,500 from JHC for no apparent reason other than not wanting to pay. JHC therefore filed a construction lien against the property and sued Centurion in the Superior Court of New Jersey for violation of the New Jersey Prompt Payment Act. The matter took two years reach conclusion. A trial was held, and JHC prevailed on all its claims. JHC won and received judgment against Centurion for $30,500, the full amount it claimed was owed. JHC requested $104,670.51 in “reasonable costs and attorney fees” pursuant to the fee shifting provisions of the Prompt Payment Act. The trial judge, however, awarded only $12,250.40 in attorneys fees and $4,125.33 in litigations costs for a total award of $16,375.73. The judge explained that he did not believe he could “grant over $100,000 in fees on a judgment that could not have exceeded $30,500.”

Published on: February 24, 2021

Appellate Division Issues Troubling New Jersey Construction Law Decision

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

The Appellate Division of the State Superior Court recently issued an opinion on New Jersey construction law in the case of In re Protest Of Contract Award For Project A1150-08, N.J. Executive State House Comprehensive Renovation And Restoration which has troubling NJ_State_House-300x200 implications for contractors. The decision is published, so it is precedent for future cases in which contractors challenge the award of New Jersey construction contracts by state and local governments. In this post I won’t dwell on the details of which contractor was right and which was wrong, but rather I’ll focus on the Appellate Division’s examination of the procedures followed, which is a cautionary tale about the ability of New Jersey construction contractors to meaningfully object to the award of public contracts.

Background

On November 15, 2019, the New Jersey Division of Management and Construction (“DPMC”) awarded a contract for renovation and restoration of the New Jersey State House to Daniel J. Keating Company, the lowest bidder at $199,498,000. Hall Construction Co., Inc., which had bid $205,777,000, was the second lowest bidder.