Coghlin Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. Gilbane Building Co.
36 N.E.3d 505
Mass.2015Background
- Public CMAR project for Worcester State Hospital psychiatric facility; DCAM owner contracts with designer and then with Gilbane as CMAR; Gilbane subcontracts Coghlin for electrical work.
- Coghlin seeks equitable adjustment and brings suit accusing Gilbane of design coordination and management errors causing added costs.
- Gilbane files third-party complaint against DCAM seeking indemnity for damages purportedly caused by DCAM's design-related issues.
- Trial court dismissed the third-party complaint as circuity of obligation, citing implied warranty implications and indemnity scope.
- Court addresses whether owner’s implied warranty applies in CMAR, whether contract excludes it, and how indemnity interacts with third-party claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied warranty in CMAR CMAR projects | Coghlin argues owner warranty applies; CMAR should bear all design defect risks. | Gilbane/DCAM contend CMAR differs from design-bid-build; implied warranty should be narrower or inapplicable. | Yes, implied warranty applies but with limited scope in CMAR. |
| Express disclaimer of implied warranty | Implied warranty survives absent express disclaimer. | Contract may expressly disclaim implied warranty; no such language found here. | No express disclaimer; implied warranty remains. |
| Indemnification provision vs. implied warranty | Indemnity could cover designer-defect damages; no bar to third-party claims. | Indemnity should bar or circumscribe third-party claims against the owner. | Indemnification does not bar third-party claims arising from designer defects. |
| Third-party complaint viability under Rule 14 | Rule 14 allows third-party claims when party may be liable to defendant. | Need judgment against Gilbane before pursuing owner for indemnity. | Third-party complaint plausible; not foreclosed by pending plaintiff verdict. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spearin, 248 U.S. 132 (U.S. Supreme Court 1918) (owner-provided plans imply warranty for plan sufficiency)
- Alpert v. Commonwealth, 357 Mass. 306 (Mass. 1970) (design warranty in public construction contexts)
- Richardson Elec. Co. v. Peter Francese & Son, 21 Mass. App. Ct. 47 (Mass. App. Ct. 1985) (implied warranty on construction plans and specs)
- Associated Subcontractors of Mass., Inc. v. Univ. of Mass. Bldg. Auth., 442 Mass. 159 (Mass. 2004) (context for public construction and bid processes)
- White v. Edsall Constr. Co., 296 F.3d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (clarifies limits of implied warranty and disclaimers)
- Campbell Hardware, Inc. v. R.W. Granger & Sons, 401 Mass. 278 (Mass. 1987) (Rule 14 and third-party claims in public construction disputes)
- Department of Community Affairs v. Massachusetts State College Bldg. Auth., 378 Mass. 418 (Mass. 1979) (supervisory scope and duties in public building projects)