Lummus Global Amazonas, S.A. v. Aguaytia Energy Del Peru, S.R. Ltda.
256 F. Supp. 2d 594 | District Court, S.D. Texas | 2002
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Lummus Global, a contractor, built natural gas facilities in Peru and disputed payment with the project owner Aguaytia. After arbitration, the panel ruled Lummus owed $13.4 million net. The court mostly upheld the arbitration award but sent back two issues for reconsideration: tax liability and credit offsets. This case shows that even when arbitration is final, courts can still review and adjust specific findings.
Key Takeaways
- •Arbitration awards are hard to overturn, but courts will examine tax calculations and financial offsets carefully—keep detailed records of all credits and tax positions
- •Delays and defects in construction trigger liquidated damages claims that arbitrators take seriously—document your schedule compliance and quality control from day one
- •Broad arbitration clauses are enforceable and binding, so understand what you're signing and how disputes will be resolved before work starts
This court confirms all other aspects of the arbitration award.
Frequently Asked Question
Can a court overturn an arbitration award in a construction dispute?
Courts rarely overturn arbitration awards, but they will review them for errors in tax calculations, financial offsets, and procedural defects. In this case, the court confirmed most of the $13.4 million award but sent back two specific issues for correction. Always preserve evidence of credits owed to you and tax positions taken during the project.
Related Cases
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.
Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit
A contractor must exhaust administrative remedies established by a regional transportation authority before pursuing breach of contract claims in court, even when the authority lacks governmental immunity from suit.
Edwin P. Harrison, and United States of America, Party in Interest v. Westinghouse Savannah River Company
The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal, holding that the False Claims Act broadly reaches false statements made to obtain government contract approval, not just false payment claims themselves.
General Services Commission v. Little-Tex Insulation Co.
The State does not waive sovereign immunity from breach-of-contract suits by accepting contract benefits; Chapter 2260's administrative procedure is the exclusive remedy for such claims.
United States v. Winstar Corp.
The Government's contractual promises regarding supervisory goodwill accounting treatment are enforceable despite subsequent regulatory changes, and the Government is liable for breach when Congress eliminated those accounting benefits.