Bates & Rogers Construction Corp. v. Greeley & Hansen

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that one party to the contract intended to extend the benefit of an exculpatory clause to its engineer where the contract described the relationship between the party and the engineer and specified the responsibilities of the engineer in detail
• concluding that one party to the contract intended to extend the benefit of an exculpatory clause to its engineer where the contract described the relationship between the party and the engineer and specified the responsibilities of the engineer in detail
• declining to decide whether doctrine barred negligence claim against professional architect
• including the L.K. Comstock & Co. exceptions as “widely recognized exceptions”
• affirming judgment denying damages pursuant to a “no damages for delay” clause as a result of no electrical service being furnished to work site until more than a year after required and denial of access to material portion of work, including cost overruns and lost profits
• claim against an engineering firm barred

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).