Repository: UIHistories Project: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1958 [PAGE 73]

EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:

70

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

[September 18

versity with a release of all claims and waiver of all liens from Crouch-Walker Company (a partnership hereinafter termed "Crouch-Walker"), one of W a r r e n ' s subcontractors, as is required by the contract between W a r r e n and the University and for the University's protection. Crouch-Walker claims that a balance of $36,620.50 is due it from W a r r e n under the contract between them, and also claims that it sustained damages, consisting principally in increased costs it alleges it incurred, in the sum of $66,265.69 in consequence of delay in the completion of its work, for which Crouch-Walker asserts both W a r r e n and the University are legally liable. W a r r e n claims that the balance due Crouch-Walker from W a r r e n under the contract between them is less than the amount claimed by Crouch-Walker and denies that it is under any liability to Crouch-Walker in connection with the latter's said claim for damages. Completion of the building was delayed, for various reasons, until more than two years subsequent to the date originally contemplated by the contract. Warren and four of the other prime contractors also assert claims for damages in substantial sums against the University because of increased costs they claim they incurred because of the delay. T h e University has denied liability to any of these contractors upon these claims because it and the architects are of the opinion that the University was not responsible for the delay in the completion of the building, the major portion of the responsibility for which the University and the architects assert is properly attributable to Warren. Some of the prime contractors asserting said claims for damages have also indicated that they believe W a r r e n to be largely responsible for the delay in the completion of the building, but assert that the University is legally liable to them for the same upon the theory that W a r r e n was the University's agent in doing the work contemplated by the contract between W a r r e n and the University. W a r r e n and Crouch-Walker apparently assert that a portion of the delay in the completion of the building is attributable to said other prime contractors, but also assert that the University is liable to them therefor upon the same theory. T h e University denies liability upon its part in connection with all of the foregoing claims, but, in the event it should be held liable with respect to any of them, it asserts that it has the legal right to recover for what it may thus be compelled to pay from the contractor or contractors found to be responsible for the delay. Repeated efforts upon the part of University officers to negotiate a settlement disposing of Crouch-Walker's claims, which might enable the University to also dispose of the other claims, have proven unsuccessful to date with the result that on September 6, 1956, Crouch-Walker instituted a suit in the Circuit Court of Cook County against W a r r e n , the University, and Seaboard Surety Company, one of the sureties upon the performance bond given the University by W a r r e n , in which Crouch-Walker prays judgment against all of said defendants in the sum of $135,000, the aggregate of Crouch-Walker's above mentioned claims plus interest at 5 per cent per annum from April 27, 1953, the date upon which Crouch-Walker claims it completed its work under its contract with Warren. Summons in that suit has been served upon the University, and the latter must file an appropriate pleading in the suit on or before October 14. Even if the suit can be and is confined to the claims asserted by CrouchWalker, the litigation it will entail will be rather extensive, protracted, and expensive. It appears unlikely, however, that the suit can or will be confined to those claims, since it is reasonably to be anticipated that, in addition to defending against Crouch-Walker's claims therein, W a r r e n will probably assert its own claims against the University in the suit and thereby broaden the issues in it to the extent that the University may find it necessary or desirable to bring the other prime contractors into the suit so that all of the claims asserted against the University, and those asserted by it, arising out of the construction of the Research and Educational Hospitals Addition and the delay in its completion will then be litigated in this proceeding. While the Legal Counsel will appear for and represent the University in this litigation he will be unable, because of his other duties, to devote to it much of the time and work which will be required. Moreover, past experience has demonstrated that it is necessary for him to have the assistance of special counsel. practicing in Chicago, in cases in the Cook County courts to which the University is a party. This is true, even though the present suit, notwithstanding the