Rule 52(c) motion granted in next installment of Sakonnet litigation.

Byline: Barry Bridges

In the latest chapter of long-running litigation centered on the construction of the new Sakonnet River Bridge, a Superior Court judge has ruled in favor of a defendant marine construction company's Rule 52(c) motion for judgment as a matter of law.

The suit was brought against several defendants by Cashman Equipment Corp., the foundation subcontractor on the $160 million replacement bridge that connects Tiverton and Portsmouth. Under its agreement with the project's general contractor, Cardi Corp., Cashman was obligated to provide the labor, materials, equipment and supervision necessary to install the project's cofferdams and tremie concrete.

In turn, Cashman entered into a series of purchase orders with Specialty Diving Services, a marine construction and commercial diving company based in North Kingstown, to assist with the underwater aspects of the work.

Bringing suit against SDS, Cashman hoped to recoup any costs of repairs that it might incur related to Cardi's $14 million construction and design claim against Cashman for alleged problems in the installation of the cofferdams.

A 41-day trial in the first phase of Cashman Equipment Corporation, Inc. v. Cardi Corporation, Inc., et al. concerning liability for the problematic cofferdams wrapped up in February. SDS moved for judgment under Rule 52(c) of the Rhode Island Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows a court, in a nonjury trial, to enter judgment as a matter of law after "a party has been fully heard on an issue."

In a February bench ruling, Judge Sarah Taft-Carter examined the contractual and indemnification claims and agreed with SDS that plaintiff Cashman did not prove its case.

"After careful consideration, this Court concludes that, based upon the competent and credible evidence at trial, SDS did not breach its purchase orders with Cashman," Taft-Carter said from the bench.

'Very complicated case'

The attorney for SDS, W. Mark Russo of Providence, described the ruling as a "complete victory" for his client.

"Even though Rule 52(c) is a procedural rule available to utilize, I have not seen it used that often, especially in complicated cases," Russo said. "And the fact that the ruling came after 41 days of trial makes it procedurally significant. I give the trial court a lot of credit for applying it in a very complicated case."

[divider]

"Even though Rule 52(c) is a procedural rule available to utilize, I have not seen it used that often...