Crown Castle Contractor Files Breach of Contract Suit vs. Subcontractor

in a complaint Friday (docket 1:23-cv-01239) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Ohio in Cleveland. APT agreed under an "oral understanding" to pay Kee for “approved services and personnel costs,” but APT never agreed to pay a “markup” of any costs or for “generic administrative services or expenses,” it said. Kee nevertheless kept invoicing APT for those charges despite failing to provide “management support” or “qualified field personnel in a timely manner,” it said. At one site, Kee workers “arrived too late to perform any work at that location,” it said. After APT reassigned Kee to a second work site, Kee’s personnel “were tardy yet again,” it said. When presented with the opportunity to assist APT with the work, Kee’s crew “stood idly by watching APT’s staff work,” it said. By relying on Kee’s contentions it could “adequately assist” APT in the growth of its business, APT lost profits and “customer goodwill” through Kee’s lackluster conduct, alleges the complaint. APT lost its contract with Samsung, “which would have resulted in significant profit,” it said. APT also “missed out on the additional job prospects” that Dish had to offer in its 5G network buildout, “which also would have resulted in significant profit,” it said. Due to Kee’s “intentional and tortious interference” with APT’s contractual relationships with Crown Castle, APT suffered economic damages and incurred unnecessary legal expenses, it said. APT has suffered, and will continue to incur in the future, economic damages “as a direct and proximate result” of Kee’s tort, it said.