Appeal, No. 9, May T., 1962, from award of Board of Arbitration of Claims, Docket No. 92, in case of Adam Eidemiller, Inc. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Highways and State Highway and Bridge Authority. Award affirmed.
Edward A. Collins, Jr., Assistant General Counsel, with him Alvin Freiberg and M. A. Madar, for State Highway and Bridge Authority, appellant.
William H. Wood, with him B. Patrick Costello, and Hull, Leiby and Metzger, and Smith, Best and Horn, for appellee.
Before Bell, C.j., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen and O'brien, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE COHEN
This case arises by way of an appeal by The State Highway and Bridge Authority of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Authority) from an award made by the Commonwealth's Board of Arbitration of Claims (Board) in favor of appellee, Adam Eidemiller, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in the highway paving and construction business.
The claim in which this award was made arose under a contract for certain highway construction work entered into between appellee and The Department of Highways of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Department) and appellant Authority.
The work was duly completed by appellee and accepted by Department and appellant.
The contract provides for the Department and Authority to be "... each obligated for only fifty percent (50%) of this contract and each and every payment which may become due, as herein specified and agreed shall be paid one-half by each." The contract provides for the arbitration of disputes involving amounts in excess of $300 as follows: "...
All questions or disputes, where the aggregate amount of such claims exceeds three hundred dollars ($300.00), respecting any matter pertaining to this contract ... shall be referred to the Board of Arbitration created by Act No. 193, approved May 20, 1937, [P.L. 728] as amended, [72 PS §§ 4651-1 to 10] in the manner and under the terms and conditions as provided therein."
After the project was completed, appellee filed a claim with Board alleging that it had been required to perform work in excess of that provided for under the contract. Department and Authority filed joint preliminary objections including a "Petition Raising a Question of the Board's Jurisdiction" on the ground that appellee's claim "did not arise from any contract." After Board dismissed the preliminary objections and an appeal from the order taken by Department ...