J. West Construction Co. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.

Richmond County Circuit Court

J. West Construction Co. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.

5 Va. Cir. 51, 1982 Va. Cir. LEXIS 133

CourtRichmond County Circuit Court

DecidedApril 16, 1982

DocketCase No. LE-572

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Va. Cir. 51 (J. West Construction Co. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Richmond County Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

J. West Construction Co. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 5 Va. Cir. 51, 1982 Va. Cir. LEXIS 133 (Va. Super. Ct. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

By JUDGE WILLARD I. WALKER

After considering the pleadings, arguments and memoranda of this case, I hold that defendants' demurrers be sustained with prejudice.

The plaintiff's motion for judgment fails to state a cause of action on which relief can be granted against either defendant. There is no duty owed by either defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had a contract with the general contractor, not with the owner or the architect. The plaintiff’s proper action is against the general contractor, not the architect and/or owner. Plaintiff alleges that since the owner retained the right to approve or disapprove of the subcontractor, the owner is legally obligated to notify the subcontractor of the general contractor's default. I know of no legal precedent for this theory and none, has been cited to me. As to the architect, his duty runs to the owner with whom he has a contract and not to the subcontractor.

For the foregoing reasons, the demurrers are sustained with prejudice.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By JUDGE WILLARD I. WALKER

After considering the pleadings, arguments and memoranda of this case, I hold that defendants' demurrers be sustained with prejudice.

The plaintiff's motion for judgment fails to state a cause of action on which relief can be granted against either defendant. There is no duty owed by either defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had a contract with the general contractor, not with the owner or the architect. The plaintiff’s proper action is against the general contractor, not the architect and/or owner. Plaintiff alleges that since the owner retained the right to approve or disapprove of the subcontractor, the owner is legally obligated to notify the subcontractor of the general contractor's default. I know of no legal precedent for this theory and none, has been cited to me. As to the architect, his duty runs to the owner with whom he has a contract and not to the subcontractor.

For the foregoing reasons, the demurrers are sustained with prejudice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Va. Cir. 51, 1982 Va. Cir. LEXIS 133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-west-construction-co-v-fidelity-deposit-co-vaccrichmondcty-1982.