Broadway Maint. Corp. v. Rutgers, The State Univ.; Edwin J. Dobson, Jr., Inc. v. Rutgers, The State Univ., 180 N.J. Super. 350

Summary

The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, affirmed judgments concerning delay claims by electrical and plumbing contractors arising from the construction of Rutgers Medical School. The court held that the contracts assigned coordination duties to the general contractor, made the other prime contractors intended third-party beneficiaries with a right to sue, enforced the no-damages-for-delay clause, and rejected claims concerning withholding funds, architect conduct, and increased switchgear costs.

Holdings

1. Rutgers did not have the contractual duty to coordinate the project; the plain language of the contracts assigned overall supervision, direction, control, and coordination to Briscoe, the general contractor.
2. A prime contractor could sue another prime contractor because each prime contractor was an intended third-party beneficiary of the contracts between the other prime contractors and Rutgers.
3. Rutgers was not liable for failing to withhold funds because the contractual procedure required a request and an architect's determination and recommendation, and the required procedure was not invoked except for one request that did not establish liability.
4. The no-damage-for-delay clause barred claims based on the backfilling problems, slow concrete work, and lack of temporary heat because those were ordinary and usual types of construction delay covered by the clause.
5. Rutgers was not liable for the architect's alleged failures concerning coordination, withholding funds, or extensions of time.
6. Rutgers was not liable for the increased switchgear cost because Broadway's bid was to remain open for 60 days, and Rutgers reasonably could place the switchgear order on hold during that period without notice that the supplier's quoted price was valid for only 30 days.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Rutgers had an implied contractual duty to coordinate the work of the six prime contractors.
2. Whether each prime contractor was an intended third-party beneficiary of the other prime contractors' contracts with Rutgers and could sue another prime contractor for breach.
3. Whether Rutgers breached its contract by failing to withhold funds from Briscoe under the contractual delay provision.
4. Whether the no-damage-for-delay clause barred claims arising from Briscoe's construction delays and Rutgers's related conduct.
5. Whether Rutgers was liable for alleged improper acts or omissions by the project architect.
6. Whether Rutgers was liable for the increased cost of Broadway's switchgear after Rutgers directed Broadway to delay ordering it.

Disposition

affirmed