Central Oklahoma Pipeline, Inc. v. Hawk Field Services, LLC
2012 Ark. 157
| Ark. | 2012Background
- Central Oklahoma Pipeline, Inc. appeals a summary-judgment ruling that its breach-of-contract and ADTPA claims are barred by §17-25-103(d).
- Hawk Field Services and related entities argued CenOk was a licensed contractor, making the license bar applicable due to lack of license.
- The contract related to construction of a 12-mile natural-gas pipeline (South and North Sections) with Phase One/Loop in Van Buren County; bid solicitation occurred July 2008.
- Section 17-25-101 defines contractor to include utility construction on property for lease, rent, resale, public access, or similar purpose for $20,000+; §17-25-103(d) bars actions by unlicensed contractors.
- CenOk challenged §17-25-103(d) as unconstitutional under Art. 2, §13, and sought to hold engineers liable under §17-25-313 for failing to inform about licensure.
- Circuit court 2010–2011 rulings held that §17-25-101/103 bar claims, §17-25-313 does not create a private tort action, and res judicata forecloses later-pleaded claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §17-25-103(d) bar CenOk's breach and ADTPA claims? | CenOk: license status should not bar claims because easement property facts aren’t lease-like. | Hawk: unlicensed contractor barred from suing under §17-25-103(d). | Bar upheld; §17-25-103(d) precludes CenOk's claims. |
| Is §17-25-103(d) constitutional under Art. 2, §13? | CenOk asserts unconstitutional restriction on redress for unpaid work. | Hawk contends rational basis supports licensure bar to protect public safety. | Constitutional under rational-basis review. |
| Does §17-25-313 create a private tort duty for engineers to inform bidders of licensure? | Engineers had duty to inform and could be liable in negligence. | No private cause of action; statute silent on such duty and not intended for tort liability. | No private action under §17-25-313; no vicarious liability for engineers. |
| Are CenOk's second-amended claims barred by res judicata? | New constitutional and private-action theories should be considered. | Claims previously decided or barred; res judicata applies. | Affirmed: res judicata bars the new claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Meadow Lake Farms, Inc. v. Cooper, 360 Ark. 164 (Ark. 2004) (contractor definition ambiguous; property-use focus strict construction)
- Williams v. Joyner-Cranford-Burke Constr. Co., 285 Ark. 134 (Ark. 1985) (licensing statute as penal; precludes unlicensed contractors from suit)
- Shannon v. Wilson, 329 Ark. 143 (Ark. 1997) (licensee violation as evidence of negligence in certain statutes)
- Branscumb v. Freeman, 360 Ark. 171 (Ark. 2004) (no private action for uninsured-owner liability; pari materia interpretation)
- Jackson v. Cadillac Cowboy, Inc., 337 Ark. 24 (Ark. 1999) (private action arising from statutory protection for licensed-vendors context)
- Roberson v. Roberson, 193 Ark. 669 (Ark. 1937) (article 2, §13 rational-basis approach to statutory public welfare)