Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
General Court of Claims
Download PDF

Illinois Constructors Corp. v. State of Illinois

39 Ill. Ct. Cl. 148 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1987-04-21 No. 84-CC-2100
Disposition: (No. 84-CC-2100-Claimant awarded $90,000.00.) Award: $90,000.00 Agency: Capital Development Board
Cite as: Illinois Constructors Corp. v. State of Illinois, 39 Ill. Ct. Cl. 148 (1987)
General Court of Claims 39 awarded 1980s Illinois Constructors Corp. v. State of Illinois 39 Ill. Ct. Cl. 148 1987-04-21 (No. 84-CC-2100-Claimant awarded $90,000.00.) /opinions/v39-p0243-1/

ILLINOIS CONSTRUCTORS CORP., Claimant, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought $119,000 for increased costs due to a delay in starting Phase II of a harbor construction project caused by the late completion of Phase I. The court awarded $90,000 based on a stipulation between the parties, finding the agreement reasonable after arms-length bargaining.

Claim type: Contract

AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.

Headnotes

  1. CoNTriAcrs-construction contract-delay damage claim-stipulationaward granted. Pursuant to the joint stipulation of the parties, the Court of Claims granted a compromise award to a contractor who suffered financial damages due to delays which prevented the Claimant from proceeding with its work on a timely basis, since, although the Court is not bound by any stipulation, a controversy will not be interposed where none exists, and where a stipulation appears to be the result of careful consideration of the facts and the law, it will be honored.

This cause coming before the Court on a stipulation for entry of judgment submitted by the parties. This is a breach of contract claim arising out of the construction of the South Waukegan Harbor Project (“the Project”) CDB Project No. 722-010-001.

Claimant was the Phase I1 contractor. Because the phases were sequential, Claimant could not commence its Phase I1 work until Phase I was completed.

[*149] On October 7, 1982, Claimant received authorization from CDB to proceed with Phase I1 contract work at the project. Claimant could not commence its work until December 6, 1982. The delay occasioned by the tardy completion of Phase I resulted in increased costs to Claimant. Claimant has alleged that it suffered in the amount of $119,000.00 associated with its increased cost of performing its work under the contract.

After extensive review of Claimant’s supporting records by representatives of CDB and following lengthy negotiations between the parties, CDB has stipulated and agreed that Claimant was prevented from proceeding with its work on a timely basis and for purposes of this claim only, admits liability under the complaint.

Because of the time and expense of trial and the vagaries of proof associated with this type of claim, the parties have stipulated and agreed that judgment should be entered in Claimant’s favor in the amount of $90,000.00.

Although this Court is not bound by any stipulation, it is not the practice of this Court to interpose controversy between the parties where none seems to exist. The instant stipulation appears to have been entered into after careful consideration of facts and applicable law by authorized representatives of the parties regarding delay damage claims under State construction contracts. The amount agreed upon seems to have resulted from the give and take associated with arms-length bargaining. This being the case, this Court sees no reason not to honor the stipulation of the parties.

It is hereby ordered that Claimant, Illinois Constructors Corporation, be awarded the sum of $90,000 [*150] (ninety thousand and no/100 dollars) in full and complete satisfaction of all its claims herein.

Official volume 39 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed and orders of dismissal entered, without opinion for: Fiscal Year 1987 – July 1, 1986–June 30, 1987)  ·  All opinions in this volume  ·  Also on CourtListener

This text is OCR/derived from the official volume and may contain errors. The PDF is authoritative. Boundary pages shared with the adjacent opinion are reproduced whole, so the page image may show a neighbor's opening or closing lines; the transcript text itself is opinion-scoped. See About & sources.