FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Waiving The Right to Arbitrate Under Federal Law

November 08, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
If there is an arbitration provision in your contract that you want to enforce, you do not want to take action inconsistent with those rights as this could give rise to a waiver argument, i.e., that you waived your rights to arbitrate, particularly if the other party has been prejudiced. Under federal policy and law, establishing waiver requires the party arguing waiver to “bear a heavy burden of proof.” U.S. f/u/b/o John Wayne Construction, G.S.A. Division, LLC v. Federal Ins. Co., 2021 WL 4526727 (M.D.Fla. 2021) quoting Stone v. E.F. Hutton & Co., 898 F.2d 1542, 1543 (11th Cir. 1990). “To determine whether the right to arbitrate has been waived, courts apply a two part test: i) whether, “‘under the totality of the circumstances,’ the party ‘has acted inconsistently with the arbitration right’”; and ii) “whether, by doing so, that party ‘has in some way prejudiced the other party.’” Id. quoting Ivax Corp. V. B. Braun of Am., Inc., 286 F.3d 1309, 1315-16 (11th Cir. 2002). Substantial participation in litigation prior to invoking the right to arbitrate supports a party acting inconsistent with the right to arbitrate. Id. And, “‘[p]rejudice has been found in situations where the party seeking arbitration allows the opposing party to undergo the types of litigation expenses that arbitration was designed to alleviate.’” Id. quoting Morewitz v. W. of Eng. Ship Owners Mut. Prot. & Indem. Ass’n (Luxembourg), 62 F.3d 1356, 1366 (11th Cir. 1995). Hence the heavy burden for a party to support to prove waiver– establishing both substantial participation in litigation that is inconsistent with the right to arbitrate AND prejudice. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Repairing One’s Own Work and the one Year Statute of Limitations to Sue a Miller Act Payment Bond

April 11, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When it comes to Miller Act payment bond claims, repairing one’s own work does NOT extend the one year statute of limitations to file suit on a Miler Act payment bond. Belonger Corp., Inc. v. BW Contracting Services, Inc., 2018 WL 704379, *3 (E.D. Wisconsin 2018) (“The courts that have considered this question tend to agree that, once a subcontractor completes its work under the subcontract, repairs or corrections to that work do not fall within the meaning of ‘labor’ or ‘materials’ and, as such, do not extend the Miller Act’s one-year statute of limitations.”). Well, what if the subcontractor was repairing its own work due to an issue caused by another subcontractor? Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

---

Jinx: Third Circuit Rules in Favor of Teamsters in Withdrawal Case

July 28, 2018 — Wally Zimolong - Supplemental Conditions
Bad omen. Last week, I wrote about a Appeals Court decision that affirmed a contractor’s escape from an over $600,000 withdrawal liability assessment from the Laborers Union. The next day the Third Circuit (which covers PA, NJ, and DE) handed down a decision affirming a federal court’s decision to assess withdraw liability. This one shows the dark side of not reading and understanding your CBA. The belligerents in the litigation were, Penn Jersey, a construction material supplier, and Teamsters Local 676. Their collective bargaining agreement contained a clause purportedly covering withdrawal liability. Specifically, the clause stated “should the Employer withdraw from the Agreement in the future, there will be no withdrawal liability. The CBA expired and Penn Jersey did not renew its agreement with the Teamsters. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

---

Approaches in the Absence of a Differing Site Conditions Clause

April 10, 2019 — Parker A. Lewton - Smith Currie
A contractor who has encountered unforeseen conditions will typically rely on the contract’s differing site conditions clause as a means to recovery. Most construction contracts address those issues directly. In ConsensusDocs Standard Agreement and General Conditions between Owner and Constructor, the starting point is § 3.16.2. But what if the contract does not contain a differing site conditions clause? Or, what if the contract does contain such a clause, but the contractor failed to provide adequate notice or satisfy other conditions or requirements of the contract? When reliance on a differing site conditions clause is impractical, a contractor still may seek recovery in certain instances under one or more of the following legal theories: misrepresentation; fraud; duty to disclose; breach of implied warranty; and mutual mistake. Misrepresentation Misrepresentation occurs when an owner “misleads a contractor by a negligently untrue representation of fact[.]” John Massman Contracting Co. v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 24, 31 (1991) (citing Morrison–Knudsen Co. v. United States, 170 Ct. Cl. 712, 718–19, 345 F.2d 535, 539 (1965)). A contractor may be able to recover extra costs incurred, under a theory of misrepresentation, if it can show that (1) the owner made an erroneous representation, (2) the erroneous representation went to a material fact, (3) the contractor honestly and reasonably relied on that representation, and (4) the contractor’s reliance on the erroneous representation was to the contractor’s detriment. See T. Brown Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 132 F.3d 724, 728–29 (Fed. Cir. 1997). These four requirements can be satisfied, for example, through the use of deposition testimony detailing the owner’s representations and the contractor’s reliance thereon. See, e.g., C & H Commercial Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 35 Fed. Cl. 246, 256–57 (1996). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Parker A. Lewton, Smith Currie
Mr. Parker may be contacted at palewton@smithcurrie.com

---

Nevada Supreme Court Reverses Decision against Grader in Drainage Case

June 30, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Nevada Supreme Court has issued an opinion in the case of Rayburn Lawn & Landscape Designers v. Plaster Development Corporation, reversing the decision of the lower court and remanding the case for a new trial.



The case originated in a construction defect suit in which Plaster Development Corporation was sued by homeowners. Plaster filed a third-party complaint against its subcontractor, Reyburn. The testimony of Reyburn’s owner was considered to be admission of liability and so the court limited the scope of Reyburn’s closing argument and did not allow the jury to determine the extent of Reyburn’s liability. Reyburn appealed.



Plaster, in their case, cited California’s Crawford v. Weather Sheild MFG, Inc. The court held the application of these standards, but noted that the “an indemnitor’s duty to defend an indemnitee is limited to those claims directly attributed to the indemnitor’s scope of work and does not include defending against claims arising from the negligence of other subcontractors and the indemnittee’s own negligence.”



On the matter of law against Reyburn, the court concluded, “Given the conflicting evidence at trial as to whether Reyburn’s work was implicated in the defective retaining walls and sidewalls, and viewing the evidence and inferences in Reyburn’s favor, we conclude that a reasonable jury could have granted relief in favor of Reyburn.” The Nevada Supreme Court conduced that the district court should not have granted Plaster’s motion for judgement.



Further, the Nevada Supreme Court found that the district court should have apportioned the fees and costs to those claims directly attributed to Reyburn’s scope of work, “if any,” and should not have assigned all attorney costs and court fees to Reyburn.



Read the court’s decision…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

This Times Square Makeover Is Not a Tourist Attraction

July 28, 2016 — Alisa Zevin - Engineering News-Record
The 80-year-old Bow Tie Building in the heart of New York City’s Times Square is undergoing a major renovation of retail space, but the tens of thousands of daily passersby will not see any construction activities: A 53-ft-tall dark-green plywood wall completely hides the 167,000-sq-ft structure. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Alisa Zevin, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Zevin may be contacted at zevina@enr.com

---

Zinc in London Climbs for Second Day Before U.S. Housing Data

January 21, 2015 — Alex Davis – Bloomberg
Zinc rose for a second day and copper held gains before data showing increased housing construction in the U.S. and a stimulus decision by the European Central Bank. Zinc advanced as much as 0.8 percent. Housing starts in the U.S., the second-largest metals consumer, climbed 1.2 percent in December from the previous month, according to a Bloomberg survey, after falling 1.6 percent in November. The ECB will announce a 550 billion-euro ($636 billion) government-bond purchase program this week, according to 93 percent of respondents in a separate survey. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Alex Davis, Bloomberg
Mr. Davis may be contacted at adavis150@bloomberg.net

---

California Court of Appeals Says, “We Like Eich(leay)!”

March 30, 2016 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Time is money. And nowhere can than be best observed than on a construction project. Project delays can mean lost profits for owners, liquidated damages for general contractors, and increased material, labor, field overhead, and home office overhead costs for general contractors and subcontractors alike. Pricing the impact of delays, however, can be thorny. Particularly, for home office overhead. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---