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
Level Three Forcible Stop Not Justified, Convictions Reversed—Prior Arrest of One of the Defendants and the Fact that Both Defendants Were Running While Looking Back Over their Shoulders Was Not Enough to Justify the Forcible Stop
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS ENTITLED TO COMMON LAW INDEMNITY (FIRST DEPT).
THE SIX-YEAR DELAY, DURING WHICH DEFENDANT WAS INCARCERATED, DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL; THE MURDER AND ASSAULT CONVICTIONS AFTER TRIAL REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
Duty to Defend
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S DATASHEET IS AN ATTORNEY-WORK-PRODUCT WHICH IS NOT SUBJECT TO FOIL DISCLOSURE; BECAUSE PETITIONER DID NOT SUBSTANTIALLY PREVAIL IN THE FOIL PROCEEDINGS, PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO FOLLOW DECEDENT’S DIRECTIVES IN A LIVING WILL OR HEALTHCARE PROXY CAN CONSTITUTE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE; HERE THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHICH HEALTHCARE PROXY APPLIED, WHETHER A PROXY WAS REVOKED BY DECEDENT, AND WHETHER THE TREATMENT GIVEN TO DECEDENT WAS APPROVED (FIRST DEPT).
RECORDS OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIVILIAN COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARD ARE POLICE OFFICER PERSONNEL RECORDS WHICH ARE EXEMPT FROM A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW REQUEST.
COUNSEL’S CONDUCT WAS NOT FRIVILOUS OR DESIGNED TO DELAY; COUNSEL WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD BEFORE SANCTIONED; THE JUDGE DID NOT INDICATE WHY THE AMOUNT OF THE SANCTION WAS APPROPRIATE, $100 SANCTION REVERSED (FIRST 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 © 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​