Wilson Contracting Co. v. State
| Decision Date | 07 October 1965 |
| Parties | WILSON CONTRACTING CO., Inc. v. The STATE of Delaware et al. STATE of Delaware v. WILSON CONTRACTING CO., Inc., et al. |
| Court | Delaware Superior Court |
Wilson Contracting Co. (Wilson) brought suit on May 22, 1963, in Civil Action No. 248. The State of Delaware (State) commenced its action, Civil Action No. 423, on August 30, 1963. The counterclaims by Wilson in that latter action were nearly identical with its main claims in Civil Action No. 248 and on May 12, 1964, the cases were consolidated. Cross motions for summary judgment have been filed.
The claims and counterclaims have several points in common with those made in State of Delaware v. T. Paul Dabson and State of Delaware v. George & Lynch, Inc., which were resolved by decision of this Court on July 1, 1965; affirmed, 217 A.2d 497 (1966). Those cases also emanated from disputes under construction contracts with the State Highway Department (Department) and were also performed under the Department's Standard Specifications of April 1, 1957. That decision is determinative of the motions for summary judgment herein made although some of it is inapplicable here.
Five contracts are involved in this case. As to Contract 920, the State contends that Wilson was paid $3.00 per cubic yard for 5,454 cubic yards of muck excavation when the unit price for excavation, including within it muck excavation, was $0.50 per cubic yard and therefore, Wilson was improperly, illegally, or mistakenly overpaid the sum of $13,636.00. Similarly, in Contract 1163, the State claims (under amendment of January 13, 1965) that Wilson was overpaid $19,397.00, $16,542.00 being attributable to a $1.50 per cubic yard increase in the unit price applicable to select borrow used for the backfilling of utility trenches, and $2,845.00 being attributable to the use of 813 cubic yards of select borrow at $3.50 per cubic yard which was neither authorized nor required. As to Contract 1224(6), the State contends that Wilson was to be paid a set figure of.$19,000 for 9,500 cubic yards of select borrow at $2.00 per cubic yard but was instead paid $22,208.12 for 11,104.06 cubic yards, an overpayment of $3,208.12. Finally, under Contract 1324, the State contends that Wilson is responsible for 199 days of liquidated damages at $165.00 per calendar day or $32,835.00 for a 199 day delay in completion beyond any extension date given by the State.
Wilson's defenses as to these claims are similar to those presented by T. Paul Dabson and George & Lynch in the companion case, namely express approval, acceptance of work without contemporaneous complaint, estoppel and release. The State's contentions in this case are similar to those advanced in the earlier cases and the facts being substantially parallel, the decision of July 1, 1965 is dispositive of the claims. Wilson's motion for summary judgment as to the State's claims is therefore granted.
Wilson's claims for damages are made as to Contracts 920, 1324 and 1378 and consist basically of allegations that substantial damage was caused by the State's alleged failure to acquire all rights of way and rights to entry and to relocate all utilities so as not to interfere with the orderly process of road construction. Wilson also alleges that the Department's failure to obtain working easements, to make swift decisions when unforeseen obstacles were encountered and to provide adequate plans or engineering work were breaches under the contracts and caused delay, idling of equipment and additional work, and Wilson demands therefore $130,000 in damages. (There is a motion pending to amend the complaint so as to claim damages of $875,000.)
There are two significant differences between Wilson's claim and those advanced in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
KUHN CONST. v. Diamond State Port Corp.
...241, 251 (Del.2008). 6 SBC Interactive, Inc. v. Corporate Media Partners, 714 A.2d 758, 761 (Del.1998). 7 See Wilson Contracting Co. v. State, 243 A.2d 65 (Del.Super.1965), aff'd 224 A.2d 396 (Del. 1966). 8 See Ruckman and Hansen, Inc. v. Delaware River and Bay Authority, 244 A.2d 277 (Del.......
-
Kuhn Const. Co. v. State Acting Through Price
...absence of fraud. See Ruckman & Hansen, Inc. v. Delaware River and Bay Authority, 244 A.2d 277 (Del.Sup.1968); Wilson Contracting Co., Inc. v. State, 243 A.2d 65 (Super.Ct.1965) affirmed in Wilson Contracting Co. v. State, 224 A.2d 396 (1966) where similar rulings were made under contract p......
-
Rummel Klepper & Kahl, LLP v. Del. River & Bay Auth.
...in the absence of fraud, despite his being an employee of the DRBA. Id. at 277-78.[87] 42 In addition, in Wilson Contracting Co. v. State, 243 A.2d 65 (Del. Super. 1965), aff'd, 224 A.2d 396 (Del. 1966), the Delaware Superior Court analyzed an arbitration provision identical to Section 1.5.......
-
Ruckman & Hansen, Inc. v. Delaware River and Bay Authority
...Court, Wilson Contracting Co., Inc. v. State of Delaware, C.A. No. 248. We have since caused the Superior Court Opinion to be reported. 243 A.2d 65. Applying this decision to the case at bar, it is apparent that Ruckman's argument is without merit. In the Wilson case the contract involved c......