(Radio Iowa) – The Iowa Supreme Court heard oral arguments Thursday in the dispute linked to the construction of the University of Iowa’s Children’s Hospital. Modern Piping won a judgment of nearly 13 million dollars after alleging the U-I wrongly used an injunction to delay arbitration in a dispute so they could gain early access to the building. University lawyer, Tessa Register, says the injunction did delay the process, but the benefit of the delay was overstated. “The university has not retained the benefit of that delay. When the only arbitration proceeding that has ever been enjoined in this case resumed and completed, the university paid nearly a million dollars in interest to dating back to the date of the initial demand before the injunction,” she says. Register says the U-I settled the claim and Modern should not gain any of the benefit for use of the building.

“The university is still not in possession of any property of Modern Piping that it received because of the injunction, nor has it retained any benefit received because of the injunction. So modern piping is not entitled to any unjust enrichment in this case,” Register says. Modern Piping’s lawyer, Mark Weinhardt, says the U-I used the illegitimacy of the injunction to get into the building early and that produced more than 12 million dollars in profit. “Until the project is complete and Modern is off the job, it is Modern’s property,” he says.

The Justices questioned that assertion, saying Modern Piping never had any entitlement to profits or revenue that the university from the hospital facility, and Modern would not take it over and operate the hospital. Weinhardt says the U-I didn’t want to follow the contract. “The parties entered into a contract that gives them that exclusive right to the property unless they, A negotiate a agreement that allows early occupancy or B, Modern completes the job,” Weinhardt says. “And the university didn’t want either one of those things. And so as a consequence, they got this illegal injunction instead.”

The Supreme Court will issue a ruling on the case at a later date.