Cashman Equip. Corp. v. Cardi Corp.
| Decision Date | 20 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | C. A. PB-2011-2488 |
| Court | Rhode Island Superior Court |
| Parties | CASHMAN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, INC., Plaintiff, v. CARDI CORPORATION, INC.; SAFECO INSURANCE CO., INC.; RT GROUP, INC.; JAMES RUSSELL; STEVEN OTTEN; CARDI MATERIALS, LLC; SPECIALTY DIVING SERVICES, INC.; HALEY & ALDRICH, INC. Defendants, v. WESTERN SURETY COMPANY; RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Third-Party Defendants |
For Plaintiff: See attached
For Defendant: See attached
Cashman Equipment Corporation, Inc.
Michael A. Kelly, Esq.
Cardi Corporation, Inc.; Safeco Insurance Co., Inc. Cardi Materials, LLC
Jeremy Ritzenberg, Esq.
RT Group, Inc.; James Russell; Steven Otten
Mark P. Dolan, Esq.
Specialty Diving Services, Inc.
Moshe S. Berman, Esq.
William M. Russo, Esq.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Brian C. Newberry, Esq.
Western Surety Company
Michael A. Kelly, Esq.
State, Department of Transportation
Myles C. Beltram, Esq.
Maxford O. Foster, Esq.
This matter is before the Court for decision following a non-jury trial on the issue of liability in connection with the replacement of the Sakonnet River Bridge, which spans the Sakonnet River between the Towns of Tiverton and Portsmouth, Rhode Island (Project). Cashman Equipment Corporation, Inc. (Cashman), a subcontractor on the Project, filed an action for breach of contract and related claims against the contractor, Cardi Corporation (Cardi) and Safeco Insurance Company, Inc. (Safeco) in May 2011.[1]
Cashman proceeded to trial on the following counts, asserted in its Fifth Amended Complaint (Complaint) against Cardi: Counts I, breach of contract-failure to pay; II, unjust enrichment; III, breach of contract-defective hanger bracket design; XIV, breach of contract/quantum meruit-extra work, analysis of cofferdam design; and XVIII, negligence- provision of defective designs.[2] Cashman also proceeded to trial on two claims against defendant Specialty Diving Services (SDS): Counts XXXIII, breach of contract, and XXXIV, indemnity and contribution. Cardi answered the Complaint and filed counterclaims (Counterclaim) against Cashman alleging breach of contract, negligent construction, fraud, breach of good faith and fair dealing, and defective engineering. Cardi also brought one claim against Western Surety Company (Western) for recovery under a performance bond.
The trial began in October 2019 and proceeded for forty-three days, through February 2020. The evidence at trial included testimony from eighteen witnesses, as well as hundreds of exhibits. The witnesses testifying at trial were John McNulty, David Fish, Mark Greenleaf, Paul Williams, Anthony Weaver, Michael Studley, Stephen A. Cardi, Gregory Maurer, Richard Savoy, Kazem Farhoumand, Carl Engle, Sean Cook, Keith Catanzaro, Jim Russell, Steven Otten, William Konicki, Paul Grimaldi, and George Tamaro. The liability and damage claims presented in Cashman's Complaint and Cardi's Counterclaim were bifurcated during the course of the trial for the sake of judicial economy. (Trial Tr. 57:16-24, Feb. 5, 2020.) The trial on damages will proceed after a determination of liability with respect to the marine cofferdams.[3]
At the conclusion of Cashman's case-in-chief, SDS filed a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law pursuant to Rule 52(c) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court reviewed the trial evidence and determined that the evidence was insufficient to sustain either claim asserted by Cashman against SDS, and therefore SDS was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. (Trial Tr. 13:9-10, Feb. 18, 2020.) On February 13, 2020, Cardi moved for a judgment as a matter of law, pursuant to Rule 52(c), as to Counts III and XVIII of Cashman's Fifth Amended Complaint. (Trial Tr. 65:4-8, 66:2-67:2, Feb. 13, 2020.) Cardi argued that Cashman did not meet its burden of proof with respect to these claims. Id. at 66:9-20. The Court heard argument on February 18, 2020 and reserved its decision until after the conclusion of the trial. (Trial Tr. 13:14-18, Feb. 18, 2020.)
On May 5, 2020, Western filed a Rule 52(c) motion, which is also before the Court. Cashman and Cardi filed post-trial memoranda on August 31, 2020. Jurisdiction is pursuant to Rule 52(a) of the Rhode Island Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure and G.L. 1956 § 8-2-14.
The Court has reviewed the testimony and the evidence presented at trial and now makes the following findings of fact.
The Sakonnet River Bridge was opened to traffic in 1956. (Trial Tr. 5:24, Nov. 21, 2019.) In 1994 or 1995, the Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT) saw a need to repair the bridge. See id. at 5:21-6:13. The initial goal was to rehabilitate it; however, for a variety of reasons, RIDOT ultimately decided to replace the bridge. Id. at 6:12-7:2.
On October 22, 2008, the State of Rhode Island Department of Administration's Division of Purchases (Division of Purchases) advertised to highway and bridge contractors that sealed bids would be accepted for the Replacement of the Sakonnet River Bridge 250 "Steel Alternative." [4](Trial Ex. 1529 at A-2; Trial Tr. 6:18-19 Nov. 1, 2019.) The bids were scheduled to be opened on January 21, 2009. (Trial Ex. 1529 at A-2.)
Prior to the advertisement, RIDOT bridge engineers contracted the Project specifications and drawings to several consulting engineering firms, including Commonwealth Engineers & Consultants, Inc. (Commonwealth) and Haley & Aldrich, Inc. (H&A). (Trial Tr. 7:22-8:16, Nov. 1, 2019; Trial Tr. 5:21-6:2, Nov. 5, 2019.) Commonwealth prepared some of the job-specific specifications, while other sub-consultants, including H&A, prepared other segments of the Project. (Trial Tr. 8:11-16, Nov. 1, 2019; Trial Tr. 6:11-13, Nov. 5, 2019.)
A key portion of the Project involved the design and construction of marine cofferdams. A marine cofferdam is a temporary, watertight enclosure built in the water for specialized construction. See Trial Tr. 5:17-24, Oct. 31, 2019; Trial Tr. 10:19-13:25, Feb. 6, 2020; see also Qin Qian, et al., Cofferdam, in Encyclopedia of Engineering Geology: Encyclopedia of Earth Science Series (Peter T. Bobrowsky & Brian Marker eds., 2018), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12127-7_59-1. The design of a marine cofferdam involves subdisciplines of civil engineering, namely structural and geotechnical engineering.[5] See Trial Tr. 10:19-13:25, Feb. 6, 2020. H&A drafted the project specifications for the marine cofferdams. (Trial Tr. 6:11-13, Nov. 5, 2019.)
The marine cofferdams' construction included components known as hanger brackets. (Trial Exs. 1308, 1309, 1310, 1311.) The function of a hanger bracket is to support a load placed on it while the concrete sets. (Trial Tr. 50:8-14, Jan. 30, 2020; Trial Tr. 68:16-21, Dec. 5, 2019; Trial Tr. 29:10-16, Feb. 6, 2020.) The weight of the concrete to be placed onto the hanger brackets during the Project totaled approximately five million pounds. (Trial Tr. 23:3-9, Jan. 30, 2020; Trial Tr. 65:21-66:5, Feb. 7, 2020.) Therefore, the hanger brackets were an essential component of the marine cofferdams during the concrete pour. See Trial Tr. 68:16-21, Dec. 5, 2019.
The award of the Project was based on "the total bid for all quantities of work in the proposal subject to review and correction as provided for in the Rhode Island Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction and Standard Details."[6] (Trial Ex. 1529, at A-1.) All construction contracts awarded by RIDOT are governed by the current Standard Specifications, except where modified by contract or specification.[7] During this Project, the 2004 edition controlled. Id. at A-2. These standards are commonly referred to as the "Blue Book." (Trial Tr. 75:24-76:3, Nov. 1, 2019.)
Control of the work is governed by Section 105 of the Blue Book. See Trial Ex. 1501, at § 105.01. Furthermore, pursuant to § 105.03, work for the Project must be performed in "reasonably close conformity" with the contract documents.[8] (Trial Ex. 1501, at § 105.03.) All "[s]hop drawings must be approved by the Engineer prior to performance of the work involved." (Trial Ex. 1501, at § 105.02.) The "Engineer" in the Blue Book refers to the chief engineer at RIDOT, Kazem Farhoumand (Mr. Farhoumand). Id. at § 101.23; Trial Tr. 101:20-23, Nov. 4, 2019. All major deviations from or modifications to the specifications or approved design drawings required written approval by RIDOT. See Trial Tr. 103:2-21, Nov. 4, 2019; Trial Ex. 1501, at § 108.06.
The bid documents also included a number of specifications to which the parties were required to adhere. See Trial Tr. 7:11-14, Jan. 6, 2020; Trial Ex. 1529, at A-2. "Code 203.99 Marine Cofferdams" related specifically to the construction of the Marine Cofferdams. (Trial Ex. 1162; Trial Tr. 26:21-25, Nov. 1, 2019.) It included a description of the work, materials, construction methods, including qualifications, method of measurement, and basis of payment. See Trial Ex. 1162.
Cardi an experienced heavy construction contractor in the state of Rhode Island, and Cashman, a sophisticated construction company with an expertise in marine construction, expressed interest in the Project as early as December 2007. (Trial Tr 6:12-14, Nov. 8, 2019; Trial Tr. 57:19-23, Dec. 3, 2019 Trial Tr. 9:22-10:1, Oct. 31, 2019.) These companies eventually forged a bond that resulted in an agreement that Cardi would submit a bid to the State for the entire Project, acting as the sole prime contractor. (Trial Ex. 1301, at 5-6.) Cashman would then act as the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial