Preview:

REL: 07/20/07

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 2290649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
SPECIAL TERM, 2007 ____________________ 1060078 ____________________ Ex parte Alabama Department of Transportation PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Good Hope Contracting Company, Inc. v. Alabama Department of Transportation) (Montgomery Circuit Court, CV-05-2781)

SEE, Justice. The Alabama Department of Transportation ("ALDOT")

petitions this Court for the writ of mandamus directing the

1060078

Montgomery Circuit Court to enter an order dismissing the complaint of Good Hope Contracting Company, Inc. ("Good

Hope"), on the grounds of sovereign immunity.

Because ALDOT

has demonstrated a clear legal right to this relief, we grant the petition and issue the writ of mandamus. Facts and Procedural Background Between March 2002 and January 2003, Good Hope entered into three contracts with ALDOT pursuant to which Good Hope was to undertake various roadway-construction projects. Those contracts contained similar liquidated-damages clauses that allowed ALDOT to assess liquidated damages against Good Hope, calculated on the basis of the number of days Good Hope exceeded the time allotted under the contract for the

completion of the project.

The contracts, however, give Good

Hope the right to request an extension of time in which to complete the project. They provide that the "Director [of

ALDOT] shall have final authority to approve or disapprove the request for an extension of time" and to decide "any question connected with ... delay in the prosecution of the Work." Petition at 7. Based upon these contract provisions, ALDOT

2

1060078

withheld approximately $600,000 in liquidated damages from the contract price owed to Good Hope on the three contracts. Good Hope sued ALDOT, alleging that the liquidated

damages had been wrongfully assessed and seeking damages for breach of contract, negligence, and unjust enrichment and asserting a claim based on quantum meruit. sought a judgment declaring that the Good Hope also

liquidated-damages

provision in each contract was a penalty and was therefore void, and it sought a writ of mandamus from the trial court directing ALDOT to pay for the services Good Hope had

performed under the contracts. ALDOT moved the trial court to dismiss the complaint on the ground that ALDOT, as an agency of the State of Alabama, is entitled to sovereign immunity under

Download 1060078.pdf

Alabama Law