CompFox AI Summary
This case involves a contractual dispute between Bovis Lend Lease (LMB), Inc. (Plaintiff), a deconstruction contractor, and Lower Manhattan Development Corp. (LMDC) (Defendant), responsible for redeveloping lower Manhattan after 9/11. Bovis was contracted to deconstruct the Deutsche Bank Building but encountered unforeseen regulatory interference and delays, leading to significant cost overruns. Bovis's amended complaint sought damages for extra work, general conditions, profit, insurance costs, and constructive acceleration. The court ruled that Bovis's claims for extra work due to regulatory interference and damages for delay were barred by the contract's 'no damages for delay' clause and the explicit assumption of regulatory delay risks by Bovis. While some claims were dismissed, others related to amounts due under the original lump sum contract, including overhead, profit, and insurance (excluding fire-related incremental costs), were reinstated after reargument. Ultimately, the court emphasized upholding the clear terms of the contract between sophisticated business entities.
Bovis Lend Lease (LMB), Inc. v. Lower Manhattan Development Corp. is a workers' compensation case decided in Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
This case involves a contractual dispute between Bovis Lend Lease (LMB), Inc. (Plaintiff), a deconstruction contractor, and Lower Manhattan Development Corp. (LMDC) (Defendant), responsible for redeveloping lower Manhattan after 9/11. Bovis was contracted to deconstruct the Deutsche Bank Building but encountered unforeseen regulatory interference and delays, leading to significant cost overruns. Bovis's amended complaint sought damages for extra work, general conditions, profit, insurance costs, and constructive acceleration. The court ruled that Bovis's claims for extra work due to regulatory interference and damages for delay were barred by the contract's 'no damages for delay' clause and the explicit assumption of regulatory delay risks by Bovis. While some claims were dismissed, others related to amounts due under the original lump sum contract, including overhead, profit, and insurance (excluding fire-related incremental costs), were reinstated after reargument. Ultimately, the court emphasized upholding the clear terms of the contract between sophisticated business entities.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.