Camrock

Camrock v. Security Paving CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 1, 2022C091102California6,249 words

Opinion

Opinion

Renner, J.

I. BACKGROUND

In December 2010, Security Paving entered into a contract with Caltrans to perform construction work on a state highway in Kern County (the 06 Project). In October 2011, Security Paving entered into a second, separate contract to perform work in Los Angeles County (the 07 Project). Camrock acted as a subcontractor to Security Paving on both the 06 Project and the 07 Project. A. The 06 Project Security Paving and Camrock entered into a written subcontract on a standard subcontract form for the 06 Project in January 2011 (the 06 subcontract). The 06 subcontract called for Camrock to reconstruct metal beam guard rails along a state highway. Camrock’s scope of work included removing wooden posts along an existing metal beam guard railing spanning approximately two miles and replacing them with metal posts. The cost to complete Camrock’s work was $310,050. However, the 06 subcontract was a unit price contract, meaning that Camrock could be paid more or less than $310,050, depending on the actual quantities installed. Camrock began work on the 06 Project in late August 2011. At the time, Security Paving was already behind schedule and incurring liquidated damages…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.