IPETERSBURG PLUMBING AND HEATING COMPANY, INC., Claimant, o. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
The claimant sought damages for breach of contract due to delays caused by the Secretary of State failing to vacate areas of the Illinois State Capitol Building during renovation. The court approved a settlement of $13,494.52 as fair and reasonable.
Cases cited: R. D. Lawrence Construction Company v. State (1983), 35 Ill. Ct. Cl. 709
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- N EIL F. H ARTIGAN , Attorney General (W ILLIAM E. W EBBER, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent. ~
- CONTRAcTs-remOrleling contract-State failed to vacate premisesbreach-claim allowed. Contractor was granted award for damages suffered when State failed to timely vacate premises which were to he rrniodeled as I part of rehabilitation of Illinois State Capitol Building, as negotitated I ' settlement arrived at by parties was reasonable according to facts of case.
The case at bar is yet another,claim by a contractor seeking to recover damages arising out of the breach of a contract by the Secretary of State relating to the remodeling and rehabilitation of the Illinois State Capitol Building which began in the latter half of calendar year 1977.
This Claimant had contracted to perform the heating and air conditioning work. As in the other claims, the Respondent breache'd the contract by failing to vacate certain areas of the Capitol which were undergoing renovation, the result being that the contractor was prevented from proceeding with the work from time to time, particularly when the legislature was in session. . Although at all relevant points in time this Claimant stood ready and willing to perform its end of the [*172] contract, it was not until April of 1980 that the Claimant completed its work, nearly a year and one-half after the projected completion date. Claimant promptly filed this claim. The damages arose out of the lengthy suspensions and delays of the work. In calculating the dollar amount of its bid and in agreeing to the contract Claimant had relied on being able to complete the project within the time specified and agreed to. Other claims of a similar nature which arose out of the delays in this project have I1 been awarded and paid. See R . D. Lawrence Construc- I tion Company v . State (1983),35 111. Ct. C1. 709. I In its complaint Claimant seeks the sum of $26,537.00.
However, the Claimant and the Respondent subsequently entered into a compromise and agreed that $13,494.52 represented a fair and reasonable settlement of this claim. Said amount was arrived as itemized below: 1 Additional labor ................... $ 3,599.43
. Insurance ......................... 1,461.09
Tool rental.. ...................... 700.OO Nonproductive labor. .............. 4,750.00 Supervision (supervisor time actually spent at construction meetings). .. .+ 1,224.00 Sub total ......................... $11,734.52 Overhead and profit at 15%...... .+ 1,760.10 Tot a1 ............................. $13,494.52 We have rev'iewed the entire record in this matter including the evidence offered in support of the settlement, find that the settlement was arrived at fairly by arms length negotiation, and agree with the parties that it is fair and reasonable according to the facts of this case.
Therefore, we hereby award the Claimant the sum of $13,494.52.[*173]