In a recent decision on a motion for summary judgment, the Superior Court strictly interpreted a “no damage for delay” clause in a subcontract. The Court held that the clause only precluded recovery of damages caused by delays and would not apply to damages that are “separate and distinct” from delays. Such “separate and distinct” damages would include hindrances that caused the subcontractor to incur extra labor costs, but did not cause delays, such as coordination failures of the general contractor that caused the subcontractor to incur additional costs, but did not cause delays. In other words, delay damages refer to the cost of an idle workforce, but not to extra manpower costs incurred to complete work on time.
To read the full text of this piece, please click on the PDF.