Supreme Court Rules for Contractor in "Scoccolo" Case
Well, that settles that...or does it? Today the Supreme Court issued its decision in the long-running dispute dispute between Scoccolo Construction and the City of Renton - a complete victory for the contractor. Justice Madsen's concurring opinion, however, raises legitimate questions on just how precedential today's decision is.
This site previewed the Scoccolo case back in May. The basic issue in the case is the meaning of the acting for" clause in the RCW 4.24.360, which makes it void against public policy for a construction contract to purport to waive the right of the contractor to sue for damages for delay caused by the contractee/owner or persons "acting for" the contractor/owner.
Scoccolo claimed its road widening project was impacted by the failure of certain utilities (Puget Power, US West, TCI Cable) to relocate their utilities to facilitate the progress of the work within Scoccolo's contract. The trial court ruled as a matter of law the utilities did "act for" the City and, on the basis of that ruling, the jury awarded roughly $400,000 in damages.
The Supreme Court upheld the damage award, finding that the City's power to compel the utilities to relocate their utilities under franchise agreement meant the utilities "act for" the City for purposes of the delay statute. Unfortunately, the Court does not appear to have separately decided the statutory meaning of the "acting for" clause apart of the way it was interpreted in the jury instruction in this case (which was not challenged on appeal), and for that reason the book may not be fully written on this issue as noted in Justice Madsen's concurrence.