The lawsuit alleges that design activities expected to begin in late 2023 were delayed and that subsequent redesigns of locker rooms, ADA restrooms, front-entry systems, and other project elements further affected the schedule. Landmark also claims severe winter weather created additional delays and that city representatives requested overtime work to help meet the planned opening date.
Among the disputed work identified in the petition are electrical modifications, life-safety gates, chemical-room improvements, concrete replacement, accessibilityrelated changes, custom rail systems, concession-area equipment, site restoration, and supervision of contractors hired separately by the city.
The contractor further alleges Webster Groves violated Missouri's public-works payment law by withholding funds beyond what is permitted under state law.
One of the petition's more unusual allegations concerns Missouri's public-works payment requirements. Landmark claims that after raising concerns about those provisions, a city representative stated that Webster Groves was not required to follow them. The city has not yet filed an answer responding to that allegation.
Rather than answering the lawsuit, Webster Groves filed a motion to dismiss on June 11.
The city does not dispute the completion of the aquatic center project. Instead, it argues that Landmark's claims are legally unenforceable because they are based on alleged oral agreements and unsigned change orders.
In its motion, Webster Groves cites both the construction contract and Section 432.070 of the Missouri Revised Statutes, which governs municipal contracts. The city argues that change orders and contract modifications must be approved in writing and that municipalities cannot be bound by oral agreements.
According to the motion, Landmark's own petition acknowledges that many of the disputed change orders were never signed by the city. Webster Groves argues that without written approval, those claims cannot support a breachof-contract action. The city also challenges Landmark's weather-related claims, arguing that the contract contains specific notice and documentation requirements for weather delays. In addition, Webster Groves contends that some of the delays cited by Landmark occurred before the parties executed the contract in January 2024 and therefore cannot form the basis of a breach claim.
The motion asks the court to dismiss the lawsuit for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
As of mid-June, Landmark had not filed a response to the motion, and the court had not ruled.
The case is Westport Pools LLC dba Landmark Aquatic v. City of Webster Groves, Case No. 26SLCC03401, in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri.
