3720 - Board of Claims

interfered with the contractor’s work when it directed the contractor to commence work even
though it had failed to drain the lake. Id. at 867.
The Court found that the borough's failure to
act interfered with the contractor, and it refused to enforce the contract’s exculpatory provisions
providing no damages for delay. The borough was held liable for the losses the contractor
sustained. Id. at 867
Even before Coatesville, case law had long established the principle that an owner is
fundamentally responsible to do that which is reasonably within his ability to provide a
contractor with reasonably unobstructed access to the work site. Hence, when a utility’s work
hinders the contractor and the owner insists that the contractor proceed with its work in an
unplanned and inefficient manner, Pennsylvania courts have looked to all the surrounding
circumstances and have frequently found the owner liable for delay and disruption damages
despite the existence of exculpatory provisions in the contract. See, Gasparini Excavating Co. v.
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, 187 A.2d 157 (Pa. 1963); Department of Highways v. S.J.
Groves & Sons Co., 343 A.2d 72 (Cmwlth. Ct. 1975); Commonwealth v. General Asphalt
Paving Co., 405 A.2d 1138 (Cmwlth. Ct. 1979).
In Commonwealth, State Highway & Bridge v. General Asphalt Paving Co., another case
involving work site obstruction with significant similarities to the case at hand, the
Commonwealth Court, relying on Gasparini and S.J. Groves, found that the project owner failed
to act in a matter essential to the prosecution of the work and refused to enforce the exculpatory
language in the contract. The contractor had to construct a road in two stages, but a water main
below the surface had to be moved before construction could proceed with the second stage. The
City of Philadelphia owned the water main. Starting at the pre-construction conference and
throughout the project, just as Mr. Pilosi did here, the PennDOT engineer in General Asphalt
88