General Contractor in Ongoing
Breach of Contract Battle with Jangho
utor Perini Building Corp.
involved in an ongoing lawsuit
against Jangho Curtain Wall Americas
Co. Ltd., Elicc Americas Corp., Ethan
Li and the Insurance Company of the
State of Pennsylvania (AIG). This sum-
TPBC), based in Arizona, is
Jangho asserts that TPBC caused the
project delays, and that the cost of damages
named by TPBC is ‘grossly inﬂated.’
mer, TPBC accused the defendants plaint presents a one-sided version of and showed a one-month time exten-
of breach of contract, among other a dispute. One should not draw any sion necessitated by delays not caused
claims. The parties have since volleyed conclusions from the allegation in a by Jangho.”
Jangho blames TPBC’s design team,
The original complaint, filed by legations in the complaint, the spokes- its project managers and other subcon-
TPBC on July 11, 2017 with the U.S. person said that Elicc and Li contend tractors for the project delays.
court motions back and forth.
complaint, he said. Contrary to the al-
District Court for the Eastern District that they were wrongfully named as
“…because of the unreasonable
of Pennsylvania, pertains to a curtain- defendants by TPBC; that no contract conditions imposed by the design
wall project for the Chestnut Street existed between Elicc and TPBC; that team,requiring all shop drawings to be
Tower in Philadelphia.
Jangho is a corporation in good stand- sealed by a registered engineer licensed
TPBC and Nevada-based Jangho ing; that Jangho and Elicc are separate in Pennsylvania and because of the
entered a subcontract on Decem- corporations operating independently design team’s unreasonable require-
ber 28, 2012 to perform work on the of each other; that TPBC breached the ments for the frit design and the de-
481,000-square-foot, 34-story student contract with Jangho by refusing to lays resulting from the inability of the
housing facility for $21 million. pay it contract balances, retainage and design team to make decisions, glass
TPBC claims that Jangho abandoned change order requests substantially in production was delayed,” reads the re-
the project inAugust 2014 after repeated excess of $5 million; that Jangho com- sponse.“Jangho had to then reconsider
delays,incorrect dimensions resulting in pleted its work on the project, and did having some of the curtainwall panels
damage and contradictory information not abandon the project as alleged in assembled in China in an effort to meet
about where the project’s curtainwall the complaint; and that timing of the what was then unreasonable, unrealis-
panels would be assembled.
According to the complaint, TPBC in- litigation.”
curred damages of more than $5.7 mil-
lion, and other subcontractors asserted asserts that TPBC caused the project
formation of Elicc is not related to the tic scheduling requirements requir-
ing that Jangho perform the assembly
Jangho requests that the court rule in
The statement added that Jangho work in a particular locale.”
claims exceeding $6.1 million because delays, and that the cost of damages its favor in regard to its counterclaim in
of Jangho’s delays and disruptions.
TPBC requested a trial by jury and
named by TPBC is “grossly inﬂated.”
On August 30, Elicc, Jangho and Li
excess of $7 million.
TPBC ﬁled responses in opposition
judgment in its favor for the $5.7 mil- entered a motion to dismiss for fail- to Elicc, Jangho, Li and AIG’s motions
lion in damages, pre- and post-judg- ure to state a claim. The Insurance to dismiss. TPBC’s response included
ment interest, court costs and other Company of the State of Pennsylvania letters and other documents detailing
relief granted by the court.
On August 11, Elicc Group sent on September 6.
USGlass magazine a statement in re-
Jangho formally responded to TP- themselves contain email exchanges
(AIG) made its own motion to dismiss what the company calls excuses for
project delays. The submitted exhibits
sponse to an article that appeared online. BC’s complaint on September 8, stat- between TPBC and Jangho from 2014
The response reads, “The post was ing that “Jangho submitted a schedule discussing whether or not Jangho
based upon allegations in a complaint which endeavored to comply with the abandoned the project.
filed by TPBC. A spokesperson for unrealistic completion dates requested
the defendants cautioned that a com- by TPBC. That schedule was updated
continued on page 30
USGlass, Metal & Glazing | October 2017