Litigation

Litigation

HOPE PRESBYTERIAN, ATLAS CONCRETE, McGUIGAN MASONRY V. CONSTRUX - Construx was hired to build an addition to the Hope Presbyterian Church. Atlas was the concrete subcontractor, and McGuigan was the masonry subcontractor. According to Atlas’ law suit, Construx denied responsibility for paying for the concrete, so Atlas sued. As the suit progressed, Construx’ attorneys withdrew from defense of Construx. McGuigan Masonry, in turn, filed their own suit against Construx, for failure to pay for the masonry work on Hope Presbyterian, and yet another job, the Mermaid Car Wash.

Just five weeks after Construx said they would waive their right to file a lien, Construx demanded another $10,054 to release the lien against the church.

CONSTRUX’ BATTLES WITH THE CHURCHES - Oddly, Construx has had contract disputes on at least two other construction jobs involving churches. Construx initially claimed that the South Side Christian Church owed them $260,492. Construx told the church if they paid that amount they would waive the right to lien the church. But County records show that Construx had already filed a lien against the church for $272,845. Just five weeks after Construx said they would waive their right to file a lien, Construx demanded another $10,054 from the church to release the lien against the church.

Published accounts state that Construx was involved in a dispute over the quality of its work at the West Side Christian Church. The Church fired Construx part way through the job, and asserted that Construx did a poor job on the building’s footings and pylons, making the structure unstable and a danger to the public. The Church had to hire another contractor to redo some of Construx’ work.

MERMAID CAR WASH/McGUIGAN MASONRY V. CONSTRUX - At the Mermaid job, McGuigan Masonry’s suit charged that Construx ordered $24,000 more materials than had been agreed on, asked McGuigan to perform additional work, but did not pay the additional sums required. McGuigan filed a lien against the property of Construx’ customer, Mermaid Car Wash, even though their dispute was with Construx. This is yet another example of how Construx’ actions caused their own customer to suffer liens and law suits. Bank One, who provided financing, was also liened and sued.

JAMES LONDON V. CONSTRUX, MERMAID CAR WASH, OTHERS - London, an ironworker, was severely injured when he fell from an I-beam on the Mermaid Car Wash Job. He sued Construx, who was the general contractor at the site, and Mermaid, who was Construx’ customer. Construx’ response was to blame the customer, Mermaid Car Wash, for failing to provide a safe work site.

Construx, who ran the concrete pump, "negligently and carelessly pumped the concrete at an unsafe rate of speed, and failed to heed warnings."

LARRY HANDILY V. CONSTRUX, OTHERS - Here is yet another case where a worker on a Construx site fell and suffered severe injuries. Handily was a roofer on the Lincoln Square job in Springfield, Illinois. The roof where he was working was a dangerous place. The roof collapsed, and Handily fell. He suffered permanent injuries to his back and was totally and permanently disabled. His suit charged that Construx and others failed to provide him with a safe scaffold, failed to cover opened spaces on the roof, failed to warn Handily about the unsafe structure of the roof, and failed to inspect the roof and work area where Handily was working.

1999 OSHA VIOLATIONS: CONSTRUX JOB SITE FALL PROBLEMS - The Handily and London court cases provide evidence that Construx job sites have had job injuries from falls in the past. OSHA has now cited Construx and fined the firm $2,450 in May 1999, for two serious violations related to fall protection violations. OSHA found these violations at a non residental Construx job site at 11825 North Route 40, Dunlop, IL. Those citations were not reduced in the settlement, and the fine was allowed to stand.

These violations, coupled with the Handily and London court suits, indicate that Construx job sites may have continuing problems protecting against injuries from falls.

Construx has also received 4 serious violations and been fined $3,000 for trench violations in 1994.

Also in 1994, OSHA cited Construx after receiving a complaint about their concrete work at 2850 Cider Mill Lane in Springfield. OSHA also cited Construx for an earlier safety violation.

CHUNES V. CONSTRUX - Tom Chunes was a worker hired to help place concrete at a Construx job site known as Piper Glen in Chatham, Illinois. Construx, who ran the concrete pump, "negligently and carelessly pumped the concrete at an unsafe rate of speed and failed to heed warnings." Chunes’ suit also charged that Construx was negligent and careless in their training of their employee who ran the concrete pump. Chunes suffered internal and external permanent injuries as a result of Construx’ negligence, and sued for over $50,000.

BLEMLER V. CONSTRUX - The Blemlers owned a house on West Bluff Road in Sangamon County, Illinois. Construx Construction trespassed on their property according to their court suit. Construx drove construction machinery upon their property, excavated four feet of soil away from their property line, which caused erosion that damaged their buildings, damaged their land with large ruts and soil piles, and dislocated their cable TV line.

RICHARDS V. CONSTRUX - In an almost identical case, Gaylon Richards, of Springfield, Illinois, sued Construx because Construx damaged his property, removed two trees, and failed to restore his property.

CONSTRUX V. THE CROSSING PARTNERSHIP, OTHERS - Construx sued their customer, over their construction of the Stu-D-Baker’s Restaurant in the Crossing Strip shopping Mall in Sherman, Illinois. The case was dismissed.

collapsed, and Handily fell. He suffered permanent injuries to his back and was totally and permanently disabled. His suit charged that Construx and others failed to provide him with a safe scaffold, failed to cover opened spaces on the roof, failed to warn Handily about the unsafe structure of the roof, and failed to inspect the roof and work area where Handily was working.

These violations, coupled with the Handily and London court suits, indicate that Construx job sites may have continuing problems protecting against injuries from falls.

Construx has also received 4 serious violations and been fined $3,000 for trench violations in 1994.

Also in 1994, OSHA cited Construx after receiving a complaint about their concrete work at 2850 Cider Mill Lane in Springfield. OSHA also cited Construx for an earlier safety violation.

CONSTRUX JOBS PRODUCE MANY LIENS TOTALLING OVER $415,000 IN CLAIMS AGAINST THEIR OWN CUSTOMERS THE FOLLOWING CUSTOMERS HAVE BEEN LIENED BY CONSTRUX AND ITS SUBCONTRACTORs*
Bluebird Development	$50,047
DR & Mrs. Tariq Murad	$69,333
	$5107*
Crossing Partnership II	$8114
William Wiebking	$19,213
John & Pat Newman	$21,643
Magna Trust/Office Depot job	$27,860
Damon’s Rib Restaurant	$9723*
John Jurgensmeyer	$13,998
Michael Ryan, Steve Mayer, E&P Development	$5697
Near North Crossing	$157,333
South Side Christian Church	$22,406
Is this lengthy record of Construx’ liens against its own customers, the reason that Stuller Inc. required a "No lien" agreement when they hired Construx?