You are here: / / Contract Provision Protected Contractee from Damages for Delay Caused by...

Contract Provision Protected Contractee from Damages for Delay Caused by Regulators​

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, the First Department determined, among many other contract-issues, that delays allegedly caused by regulators (re: asbestos-removal) were included in the contract provision which insulated the contractee from delay-related damages:

“A clause which exculpates a contractee from liability to a contractor [Bovis] for damages resulting from delays in the performance of the latter’s work is valid and enforceable and is not contrary to public policy if the clause and the contract of which it is a part satisfy the requirements for the validity of contracts generally”…. However, such a clause may be disregarded under certain recognized exceptions, including one for delays that are “uncontemplated” …. Delays are not considered uncontemplated when they “are reasonably foreseeable, arise from the contractor’s work during performance, or . . . are mentioned in the contract” …. Further, a party seeking to invoke any of the exceptions to the general rule that no damages for delay clauses are enforceable bears a heavy burden … .

Here, Bovis failed to carry its heavy burden. The contract specifically anticipated the possibility that the involvement of regulators would delay the process. Again, Bovis expressly acknowledged that it assumed the “risk of all regulatory and other Governmental Authority delays.” Certainly this lifted the no damages for delay clause out of the exception for uncontemplated delays. There is no basis for Bovis to argue that by alleging that the extent of the regulatory delays was extreme and unprecedented it stated a claim for delay damages. As this Court has stated in finding a no damages for delay clause enforceable, “[W]hile the conditions themselves may not have been anticipated, the possibility, however unlikely, of their arising was contemplated and addressed by the parties in their agreement” … .  Bovis Lend Lease (LMB), Inc v Lower Manhattan Dev Corp, 2013 NY Slip Op 03804, 1st Dept, 5-28-13

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT

You might also like
NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR RETALIATORY TERMINATION CLAIM PURSUANT TO CIVIL SERVICES LAW 75-b.
PLAINTIFF’S FALLING INTO A HOLE ON THE PREMISES AFTER HIS TRUCK WAS LOADED WAS NOT THE RESULT OF “USE” OF THE TRUCK WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INSURANCE POLICIES (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1), LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION IN THIS FALLING OBJECT CASE, EVEN IF PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN WHERE HE WAS AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT (FIRST DEPT).
Intent Must Exist Simultaneously with the Act/Accidental Discharge of a Firearm, Even Where the Shooter Intends to Assault the Victim, Does Not Constitute Intentional Assault/Loss of Police Officer’s Handwritten Notes Did Not Mandate Adverse Inference Jury Charge—Insufficient Showing of Prejudice
To Demonstrate “Defamation by Implication” Where the Factual Statements Are Substantially True, It Must Be Shown the Communication as a Whole Imparts a Defamatory Inference and the Author Intended or Endorsed the Defamatory Inference
MOTION TO COMPEL ACCESS TO PLAINTIFF’S DEVICES, EMAIL ACCOUNTS AND SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS TO OBTAIN EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF’S PHYSICAL ACTIVITIES SINCE THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF STATED CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM UNDERPAYMENT OF WAGES FOR MANUAL LABOR PURSUANT TO THE LABOR LAW; PLAINTIFF WAS PAID BI-WEEKLY; THE LABOR LAW REQUIRES PAYMENT WEEKLY (FIRST DEPT)
THE PHOTO ARRAY WAS UNDULY SUGGESTIVE; THE VICTIM WAS FIXATED ON THE UNIQUE WHITE AND BLACK PATTERN ON THE SHIRT WORN BY THE ROBBER; IN THE PHOTO ARRAY A SHIRT WITH A BLACK AND WHITE DESIGN WAS VISIBLE IN THE DEFENDANT’S PHOTO, BUT THE FILLERS WERE ALL WEARING SOLID COLOR SHIRTS (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Retainer Agreement in Divorce Action Which Addressed Only Work “Up To” Trial... Grabbing and Spinning a Person Does Not Constitute Unlawful Imprisonment​