Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND POTOMAC CONSTRUCTORS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Case No. RWT 06-2918

EFCO CORP., Defendant

MEMORANDUM OPINION Bridges and contracts have a lot in common. They both unite people, they both make commerce possible, and they both need to be put together very carefully. The parties in this case put considerable care into negotiating their contract for bridgebuilding equipment and materials. To paraphrase Justice Scalia's observation in

Whitman v. American Trucking Ass'n, were it not for the hundreds of pages of memoranda and exhibits submitted by the parties, one would have thought the contract they signed was relatively clear. 531 U.S. 457, 465 (2001). Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeks to exclude damages which it claims were limited by the contract between the parties. Because the Court finds that the plain terms of the contract limit the damages Plaintiff may seek, Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the issue of contractual damages shall be granted. Plaintiff also seeks damages for costs allegedly caused by Defendant's negligence. The bulk of Plaintiff's negligence and indemnification damages are barred by the economic loss doctrine. However, because a portion of Plaintiff's claim may fall into a narrow exception to that doctrine, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on

1

Plaintiff's negligence and indemnification counts shall be granted in part and denied in part. SUMMARY OF FACTS A. THE PROJECT Plaintiff was the general contractor for the Maryland approach spans in the $2.5 billion dollar project to replace the Woodrow Wilson Bridge.1 Plaintiff's $191 million dollar contract with the Maryland State Highway Administration included a strict timeline and daily financial penalties for delays. Plaintiff entered into a purchase order agreement with Defendant to engineer and supply steel "formwork" for $2.075 million dollars. The formwork was used to cast concrete segments that would be incorporated into the bridge's support structure. Plaintiff now seeks damages of thirteen million dollars, claiming that the entire project was significantly delayed by (1) Defendant's tardy deliveries, and (2) the poor quality of the formwork. Plaintiff's Complaint contains three counts. In Count I, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached its contract by "failing to deliver the formwork on time, failing to properly design the formwork, [and] by supplying formwork that did not perform as required." Compl.

Download Potomac Contruction v. EFCO (Opinion).pdf

Maryland Law