M.G. Dyess contends that the trial judge in the previous case deemed the retainage issue not ripe, prompting them to bring the matter to court once again.
Unraveling the Knots: Slip Repairs and Contractual Obligations
Central to the disagreement is the interpretation of a February 2020 letter from MarkWest. Dorris claimed that MarkWest sought reimbursement for slip repairs, a request outside the scope of the initial contract. According to him, MarkWest was responsible for hiring an engineering firm for slip repairs, and M.G. Dyess’ responsibility was confined to the pipeline project.
In contrast, Lindsay argued that the restoration of a road, torn up during the pipeline installation, was part of M.G. Dyess’ contractual obligations. He insisted that Dyess was deflecting blame for project failures onto MarkWest.
The Courtroom Showdown Continues
As the legal showdown continues, both sides remain steadfast in their positions. M.G. Dyess, represented by a team from Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP and Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell LLP, is determined to secure the $4.1 million owed. MarkWest, defended by Snell & Wilmer LLP, is resolute in holding M.G. Dyess accountable for alleged failures in project execution.
