Court Opinion.pdf

The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled on the case of C and H Electric, Inc. v. Town of Bethel, determining that a property owner's conduct did not constitute "active interference" for purposes of an exception to a "no damages for delay" clause in a construction contract. The plaintiff, C and H Electric, Inc., had appealed the trial court's judgment, arguing that the town's ongoing asbestos abatement work at the school had interfered with their electrical work, entitling them to additional costs.

The court found that the town's conduct did not rise to the level of active interference, as it had taken steps to minimize disruptions and had not acted in bad faith or with gross negligence. The court also rejected the plaintiff's claim that the town's conduct fell within the exceptions to the "no damages for delay" clause established in White Oak Corp. v. Dept. of Transportation.

The contract between the parties included a "no damages for delay" clause, which limited the town's liability for delays, with an exception for "active interference" by the town. The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to compensation under this exception, as the town's actions did not meet the required standard. The judgment of the trial court was therefore affirmed.

Key facts of the case include:

The town had installed asbestos-containing materials during the original construction of the school in the 1960s and 1970s.
The town had attempted to abate some of these materials during renovations in the 1980s but left some in place.
In 2004, the town decided to renovate and expand the school, hiring an environmental consultant to identify hazardous materials, including asbestos.
The consultant discovered asbestos left behind in the existing building and recommended its removal before beginning the renovation project.
The town hired an abatement contractor to perform the removal work, expecting it to be completed before the start of classes in the fall of 2006.
The abatement contractor completed only 70% of the work before the start of classes, and the town suspended the work, choosing to complete it later.
The town moved forward with the construction project, and the plaintiff contracted to perform the electrical work for over $3 million.
The contract included a "no damages for delay" clause with an exception for "active interference" by the town.

The court's decision turned on the interpretation of "active interference" and whether the town's conduct met this standard, ultimately finding that it did not.