Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Scarlett Harbor Associates Ltd. Partnership
109 Md. App. 217 | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland | 1996
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
A condominium council sued a developer and subcontractors for defects in a Baltimore high-rise. The court ruled that failing to build according to plans and specifications violates Maryland's Consumer Protection Act and constitutes deceptive trade practices. This means subcontractors can face consumer protection claims—not just contract claims—if their work doesn't match the approved plans, and these claims may have longer time limits than standard breach of contract suits.
Key Takeaways
- •Building work that deviates from plans and specs can trigger consumer protection lawsuits, which carry different (often longer) statutes of limitations than contract claims
- •Subcontractors should document all plan compliance and get written approval for any deviations to defend against deceptive trade practice allegations
- •Performance bond issuers like Hartford may be dragged into disputes as third parties, so ensure your bonds clearly define scope and limits
Conformity to plans and specifications is a characteristic of real property.
Frequently Asked Question
Can I be sued under consumer protection laws if my work doesn't match the plans?
Yes, in Maryland. The court held that conformity to plans and specifications is a 'characteristic' of the property, so misrepresenting or failing to meet plan requirements can be a deceptive trade practice. This is separate from contract breach and may have a longer statute of limitations, exposing you to additional liability.
Related Cases
Gall v. United States
Appellate courts must review all sentences under an abuse-of-discretion standard regardless of whether they fall inside or outside the Guidelines range, and cannot require extraordinary circumstances to justify sentences outside the range.
Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Tex.
Forum-selection clauses in federal contracts are enforced through §1404(a) transfer motions, not §1406(a) dismissals, and must be given controlling weight except in exceptional circumstances.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy
Sovereign immunity bars a contractor's breach-of-contract suit against a state agency absent express legislative consent; neither the agency's conduct, contract terms, nor general statutes waive immunity from suit.
Piotrowski v. City of Houston
Municipal liability under § 1983 requires proof of official policy as the moving force; isolated employee misconduct insufficient, and equal protection claim time-barred.
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena
Federal race-based classifications must be analyzed under strict scrutiny regardless of whether they benefit or burden minorities, and the Fifth Amendment's equal protection obligation equals the Fourteenth Amendment's.
Northeastern Florida Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America v. City of Jacksonville
An association of contractors has standing to challenge a minority set-aside ordinance without proving any member would have won a contract absent the ordinance; the injury is denial of equal competitive opportunity, not loss of a specific contract.