J&R Slaw, Inc. v. Chesakl Enterprises, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied Chesakl Enterprises, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment in a construction subcontract dispute brought by J&R Slaw, Inc. The court held that expert testimony was not necessarily required for Slaw’s liquidated-damages claim or its claims for equipment and material cost overruns. Factual disputes concerning an admission of delay, the parties’ performance, and the admissibility and scope of testimony required that the claims proceed to trial.

Holdings

1. Expert testimony was not required to advance Slaw's liquidated-damages claim because the claim was based on the contractual daily amount and the number of days of delay, which a factfinder could calculate arithmetically if it found in Slaw's favor.
2. The absence of expert testimony did not warrant summary judgment on Slaw's equipment and material cost-overrun claims because the affidavit of Slaw's co-owner and treasurer described observations and specialized experience that could support admissible lay or expert testimony.
3. Summary judgment was denied because the record contained evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that Chesakl breached the subcontract and caused recoverable damages.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Slaw's breach-of-subcontract claims for liquidated damages and equipment and material cost overruns were barred at summary judgment because Slaw lacked expert testimony.
2. Whether the testimony and affidavit submitted by Slaw created genuine disputes of material fact concerning Chesakl's breach and the claimed damages.

Disposition

other