Building Knowledge

In a construction dispute arising out of a general contractor’s failure to pay a subcontractor for work performed on a project funded by local government entities, an arbitration panel awarded the subcontractor the amount of the outstanding payment. The circuit court affirmed the award but denied the subcontractor’s request for prejudgment interest and attorney fees under the Interest Act and Public Construction Bond Act and the subcontractor appealed. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the plain language of the bond stated that the payment obligations were limited to undisputed amounts so that prejudgment interest did not begin accruing until the arbitration panel resolved the issue and the panel included this in its monetary award for the subcontractor. The appellate court also held that the subcontractor was not entitled to any additional attorney fees. (REYES and D.B. WALKER, concurring)

Plaintiff filed a complaint for declaratory relief seeking an order that the defendant, an insurance company, had a duty to defend and indemnify the plaintiff to the extent plaintiff was found liable in an underlying matter involving a carbon monoxide leak at a middle school. The trial court dismissed one count of plaintiff’s six-count complaint and entered summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the remaining counts. Plaintiff appealed and argued that the trial court erred by failing to determine whether each act alleged in the underlying lawsuit fell outside of the applicable policy’s professional services exclusion and when the trial court found that the underlying lawsuit arose solely out of the plaintiff’s activity of conducting and preparing a health/life safety survey. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the trial court erred in finding the allegations of the underlying lawsuits fell under the professional services exclusion of the insurance policies. (STEIGMANN and KNECHT, concurring)

Plaintiff appealed from a trial court order compelling arbitration for all of the issues raised in plaintiff’s complaint and dismissing the case. The issue on appeal was whether the circuit court erred by determining that the validity of a mechanic’s lien was subject to arbitration. The appellate court affirmed, finding that because the lien claim was based on a contract dispute between the parties it was essentially the same cause of action as the contract dispute. (LYLE and NAVARRO, concurring)