North Pacific Directors, Inc. v. State, Department of Administration

[CONTRACT LAW]

In North Pacific Directors, Inc. v. State, Dep’t of Administration,[1] the supreme court held that a contractor is not entitled to additional compensation due to differing site conditions when the differing site conditions could have been noticed during contractor inspections.[2] The Alaska Department of Administration (“Department”) and North Pacific contracted for a renovation, including asbestos removal, of the Juneau State Office Building.[3] North Pacific’s contract acknowledged that they were responsible for visiting and carefully examining the site.[4] Nevertheless, North Pacific did not visit the site before they began the contract’s work.[5] Later, it requested additional compensation for the asbestos removal, claiming the site’s conditions differed from what was outlined in the contract, which caused the company to incur additional costs in fulfilling its obligations.[6] The Department denied the differing site conditions claim.[7] North Pacific subsequently filed a claim against the Department, asserting that the Department had a duty to disclose superior knowledge of the site’s conditions.[8] The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision, stating that no such duty existed.[9] Therefore, according to the court, North Pacific’s claim must fail due to their failure to investigate the site.[10] Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that a contractor is not entitled to additional compensation due to differing site conditions when the differing site conditions could have been noticed during contractor inspections.[11]

 



[1] 2013 WL 4768380 (Alaska Sept. 6, 2013).

[2] Id. at *10.

[3] Id. at *1.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id. at *5.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] Id. at *10.

North Pacific Directors, Inc. v. State, Department of Administration

[CONTRACT LAW]

In North Pacific Directors, Inc. v. State, Dep’t of Administration,[1] the supreme court held that a contractor is not entitled to additional compensation due to differing site conditions when the differing site conditions could have been noticed during contractor inspections.[2] The Alaska Department of Administration (“Department”) and North Pacific contracted for a renovation, including asbestos removal, of the Juneau State Office Building.[3] North Pacific’s contract acknowledged that they were responsible for visiting and carefully examining the site.[4] Nevertheless, North Pacific did not visit the site before they began the contract’s work.[5] Later, it requested additional compensation for the asbestos removal, claiming the site’s conditions differed from what was outlined in the contract, which caused the company to incur additional costs in fulfilling its obligations.[6] The Department denied the differing site conditions claim.[7] North Pacific subsequently filed a claim against the Department, asserting that the Department had a duty to disclose superior knowledge of the site’s conditions.[8] The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision, stating that no such duty existed.[9] Therefore, according to the court, North Pacific’s claim must fail due to their failure to investigate the site.[10] Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that a contractor is not entitled to additional compensation due to differing site conditions when the differing site conditions could have been noticed during contractor inspections.[11]

 



[1] 2013 WL 4768380 (Alaska Sept. 6, 2013).

[2] Id. at *10.

[3] Id. at *1.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id. at *5.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] Id. at *10.