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
WHEN A JUDGE MAKES A WRONG RULING WHICH CANNOT BE APPEALED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT PROMPTED BY A MOTION, A MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PURSUANT TO CPLR 5015 IS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY; THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE CAN BE APPEALED, AS WAS SUCCESSFULLY DONE HERE (FIRST DEPT).
THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REQUIRED SERVICE BY OVERNIGHT EXPRESS; THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WAS SERVED BY PRIORITY MAIL; THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE SPECIFIED MANNER OF SERVICE DEPRIVED THE COURT OF JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE MOTION.
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY DID NOT DISPLACE THE BUILDING OWNER’S AND MANAGER’S DUTY TO KEEP THE ELEVATORS SAFE AND DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM; IT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; A VIOLATION OF THE NYC BUILDING CODE IS NOT NEGLIGENCE PER SE (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY RAISED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE AND PREJUDICE ISSUES IN HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BECAUSE HE WAS NOT INFORMED HE COULD BE DEPORTED BASED ON THE GUILTY PLEA; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE MOTION WITHOUT A HEARING (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE THE CITY HAD WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE SIGN POST STUMP OVER WHICH SHE TRIPPED AND FELL, THE FALL OCCURRED WITHIN THE 15-DAY GRACE PERIOD FOR THE NOTICE THE CITY DID RECEIVE, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED.
DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATED A PLEA WHICH WOULD NOT RESULT IN MANDATORY DEPORTATION COULD HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT; THE MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (FIRST DEPT).
THE HOIST WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS OPERATING WAS A SAFETY DEVICE WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1); WHEN PLAINTIFF OPENED THE EMERGENCY HATCH ON THE HOIST FOR A REPAIRMAN, THE HATCH DOOR SLAMMED BACK DOWN ON HIS HEAD; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
NEW YORK CITY LOCAL LAW BANNING E-CIGARETTES DOES NOT VIOLATE THE ONE SUBJECT RULE OF THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION, THE MUNICIPAL HOME RULE LAW OR THE NEW YORK CITY CHARTER.

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 © 2026 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​