Urban Masonry Corp. v. N&N Contractors, Inc.
676 A.2d 26 | District of Columbia Court of Appeals | 1996
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
N&N Contractors installed 68 extra precast concrete panels beyond their original contract with Urban Masonry. Urban's project manager acknowledged the extra work and promised additional payment, but later refused to pay. The court ruled that N&N was entitled to full compensation for the extra panels, plus attorneys' fees and interest. The case was remanded only to recalculate the attorneys' fees amount. This decision protects subcontractors who perform extra work with the general contractor's knowledge and verbal approval.
Key Takeaways
- •Document all extra work in writing immediately—get the GC's acknowledgment in email or change order form, not just verbal promises
- •You can recover payment for work beyond the original contract scope if the GC authorized it, even without a formal change order
- •Keep detailed records of what was actually installed versus what the contract required—this evidence won the case for N&N
- •You may recover attorneys' fees if your contract allows it, so include this clause in all subcontracts
Contractors performing work beyond the scope of contract are entitled to compensation.
Frequently Asked Question
Can I get paid for extra work if the general contractor verbally approved it but won't pay?
Yes, if you can prove the GC acknowledged and authorized the extra work. This case shows that a subcontractor recovered full payment for 68 extra panels based on the GC's promise of additional compensation. However, don't rely on verbal approval alone—get written confirmation via email or change order immediately after the GC authorizes extra work to avoid disputes.
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.
Green International, Inc. v. Solis
No-damages-for-delay clauses in construction contracts need not meet the conspicuousness requirement established in Dresser for exculpatory negligence clauses, and such clauses are enforceable to bar delay damages absent specific exceptions.