Construction Law

Plaintiff construction company filed petition for writ of mandamus in trial court requesting that court order Defendant (Illinois Capital Development Board), with which it had entered into construction contract, to submit its invoice to State Comptroller for payment.Court properly granted Defendant's 2-619 motion to dismiss, as Court of Claims had exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction over dispute. Payment Act does not impose on state agencies a mandatory, nondiscretionary duty to submit invoices to State Comptroller for payment after certificate of substantial completion has been issued. (TURNER and HOLDER WHITE, concurring.)

Public Construction Bond Act does not require the furnishing of a "completion bond" and a "payment bond", but the procurement of "a bond" for the public work. Once the bond is obtained, it is deemed to include both a payment and performance provision.(GARMAN, THOMAS, KILBRIDE, and KARMEIER, concurring.)

Contractor filed a mechanics lien with an incorrect completion date. Incorrect dates of completion in Plaintiffs' claims did not materially affect Defendants' right of notice under the Mechanics Lien Act, and as to completion dates on lien claims, Act's requirements are to be liberally construed to give effect to its remedial purpose. Plaintiffs' lien claims should not be defeated because actual date of completion was mistakenly recorded by Plaintiffs, when mistaken date and correct date are both within time periods required by Sections 7 and 24 of Act. Completion dates stated in Plaintiffs' lien claims do not constitute binding judicial admissions. Court erred in denying Plaintiffs' motions for leave to amend their counterclaims with new completion dates, and genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether Plaintiffs complied with requirements of Act. (McBRIDE and TAYLOR, concurring.)

Illinois Tollway Authority hired Defendant construction company as general contractor on I-355 project. Subcontractor, which was hired by subcontractor, sued general contractor after pipe-jacking work was complete and no payment was received. After bench trial, court properly entered judgment for subcontractor which had done pipe-jacking work. General contractor would have been unjustly enriched if permitted to retain benefit that it specifically requested at agreed price. Contract between two subcontractors is not a barrier to recovery from general contractor on quasi-contract theory, and general rule that a party must exhaust its legal remedies before pursing equitable remedy is inapplicable.(SCHOSTOK and HUDSON, concurring.)