CLEARFIELD – On Wednesday afternoon, attorneys for the Clearfield Area School District as well as for the construction management firm and general contractor for the former Girard-Goshen Elementary School were in Clearfield County Court to seek motions of summary judgment before President Judge Fredric Ammerman.
Girard-Goshen was constructed in 2002. However, it was temporarily closed by the district in 2010 due to structural issues with its roof, and faculty and students were relocated to the Clearfield Elementary School. Girard-Goshen was permanently closed by the district in 2012, according to previous GANT reports.
The district filed suits against the numerous contractors involved with the construction of the former elementary school. It has reached settlements with all of the contractors, except for Mid-State Construction (general contractor) and URS Corp. (construction management). Since then, URS Corp. has filed a countersuit against the district to seek the cost for its attorney fees.
Thomas R. Hurd, attorney for URS Corp., explained that URS Corp. wasn’t involved in the construction of Girard-Goshen. He said it later acquired the company that acted as the site manager for the construction of the former elementary school.
According to him, their initial contract with the district was agreed upon in 1995 for the construction of the Clearfield Elementary School and renovations to the Goshen Elementary School. He said it was later amended to extend the term of the contract through 2001.
Ultimately, he said the district moved forward with the construction of the Clearfield Elementary School. However, he said it abandoned the plans for renovations to Goshen Elementary and decided to construct a new elementary school.
In his argument, Hurd said even though Girard-Goshen wasn’t constructed until after the expiration of the contract, it remained in effect since both parties continued to execute its terms. He also pointed out that URS Corp. invoiced the district, which made payment without any complaint.
As well, Hurd argued that the district was required to provide an indemnity clause to defend URS Corp. in the event that claims would arise against them. He said the district has contented to satisfying the provision of an indemnity clause within general conditions.
However, Hurd argued that the district’s provision is far more limited and clearly not expansive. He said URS Corp. was entitled to a defense, it shouldn’t have to pay and the district needed to “make good.”
Hurd also dismissed the district’s contention that the initial contract isn’t applicable due to an oral contract being set forth by the district and URS Corp. Hurd emphasized that the district has failed to present any witnesses or testimony of this alleged oral contract. He also said it would be absurd for the district to agree to an oral contract when it involved $148,000 worth of services.
Hurd subsequently asked Ammerman to not only grant a summary judgment to terminate the district’s lawsuit, but to also issue another ruling on URS Corp.’s side in its countersuit.
In her counterargument, Jaime Doherty, the district’s attorney, said the district’s initial contract was implemented in 1995. She said it was extended through 2001 and expired seven months prior to the construction of the former Girard-Goshen Elementary School. She indicated there wasn’t anything beyond that in writing after the extension.
When asked by Ammerman about claims of an oral contract, Doherty said the district can present testimony from a witness. She believed it would be a matter for a jury to decide upon.
In regards to the countersuit, Doherty argued that the district can’t defend URS Corp. on its own negligence. She said URS Corp.’s negligence was why problems occurred at Girard-Goshen in the first place.
Doherty said that URS Corp. committed acts of negligence with the Girard-Goshen construction. However, she said URS Corp. was trying to put off the impression that they were an “innocent passerby,” while they were absolutely the “guard dog” of the construction.
Joseph P. Green, Esq., attorney for Mid-State Construction, asked Ammerman for summary judgment due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. He said the district has contended that there’s a warranty between the district and Mid-State; however, he noted that wasn’t the case.
In regards to this, Doherty argued that there was a 15-year warranty for workmanship. She said it was in the agreed upon bid documents between the district and Mid-State.
After the conclusion of arguments, Ammerman indicated to all parties that he would take them under consideration.