Dispute Resolution in Your Construction Contract
February 07, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThere are important provisions in your construction contract that are geared towards dispute resolution. These are provisions you want to understand – not when a dispute arises, but BEFORE the dispute ever occurs.
Many times, dispute resolution provisions are cast aside or not appreciated until a dispute rears its ugly head. This can put you in a reactive stance versus a proactive stance, which you want to be in, because you want to proactively make sure all rights are preserved relative to the dispute. You want to proactively make strategic decisions based on the dispute resolution provisions and process in your contract.
Before your contract even gets signed, you may want to negotiate aspects of the dispute resolution process for many reasons. The process could be one-sided. It could be onerous. It could be complex. It could be unfavorable or costly with respect to how you want to progress a dispute. If you appreciate the dispute resolution process from the get-go, you will be in a more effective position to navigate the process while ensuring you are preserving your rights moving forward.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Owners Bound by Arbitration Clause on Roofing Shingles Packaging
December 04, 2018 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn today’s age, you are probably familiar with terms such as a shrinkwrap contract (terms and conditions), which is a boilerplate contract included with a retained product, or a clickwrap contract (terms and conditions), which is generally a boilerplate contract that is digitally accepted when purchasing software or an electronic product. These are are boilerplate terms from manufacturers or vendors of products or software. Arbitration provisions in these types of agreements have generally found to be enforceable.
In the recent ruling by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Dye v. Tamko Building Products, Inc., 2018 WL 5729085 (11th Cir. 2018), the court held that an arbitration provision included in a product-purchase limited warranty agreement on the package of every roofing shingles binds a homeowner to arbitrating disputes over the opened and retained product with the manufacturer, irrespective of whether the shingles were purchased by an owner’s roofer. The shingles do not have to be purchased and opened by the owner for the arbitration provision to apply. If the roofer uses or retained the shingles for purposes of the owner’s home, such knowledge of the product-purchase limited warranty agreement on the packaging of the shingles is imputed to the owner (end-user of the shingles).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Oregon Courthouse Reopening after Four Years Repairing Defects
April 01, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Courthouse Square in Marion County, Oregon is due to reopen after four years and nearly $23 million of repair costs to fix structural defects, according to the Statesman Journal. The square includes a courthouse building and bus mall, and is jointly owned by the county and transit district.
Two years after the Courthouse Square had been built, cracks were observed “in the building’s walls” and “paving stones on the bus mall shifted and settled.” A construction defect suit was filed in 2006.
However, the situation worsened in July of 2010 when “engineers determined that the entire complex was dangerous,” according to the Statesman Journal. “Building safety officials gave Courthouse Square’s occupants 60 days to move out, forcing county and transit district operations into temporary leased space.”
Now that the structural repairs have been completed, Dave Clark, project manager with Structural Preservation Systems LLC (the company awarded the repair contract), stated that the building’s structure is now stronger than most buildings. “If there’s an earthquake, come to this building,” Clark said.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
COVID-19 Response: Essential Business Operations: a High-Stakes Question Under Proliferating “Stay at Home” Orders
April 27, 2020 —
Karen C. Bennett, Katherine I. Funk & Jane C. Luxton - Lewis BrisboisAn ever-expanding number of states and local government authorities are issuing “shelter in place” or “stay at home” orders that restrict the movement of employees of non-essential businesses. These orders have prompted many businesses to question whether they qualify as “essential,” requiring employees to continue working. With substantial differences among the stay at home orders – and even potential conflicts between state and local directives – it is a matter of extreme urgency for businesses to determine whether they fall within the definition of “essential,” particularly as many of these orders include civil and criminal penalties.
Developments are unfolding very quickly, and clients we are advising are encountering law enforcement visits and threats of criminal prosecution as a consequence of decisions to stay open. As these designations are heavily fact-specific, and being revised, advance preparation and advice of counsel are essential.
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois attorneys
Karen C. Bennett,
Katherine I. Funk and
Jane C. Luxton
Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Funk may be contacted at Katherine.Funk@LewisBrisbois.com
Ms. Luxton may be contacted at Jane.Luxton@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hennigh Law Corporation Wins Award Against Viracon, Inc In Defective Gray PIB Case
July 11, 2022 —
Scott Hennigh - Hennigh Law CorporationLOS ANGELES, July 08, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Hennigh Law Corporation has announced that, after an over four-year battle in and out of court, a three arbitrator panel issued a 93-page interim award in finding Viracon, Inc., liable for $13,682,840 in direct damages for defrauding the owner of the premier office building in Burbank, California, The Pointe. The matter now enters the second phase, where the arbitration panel will rule on the amount of punitive damages to assess, as well as attorney fees and interest.
Scott Hennigh, trial attorney, states, "The California construction industry is very robust with high standards. The arbitration panel appears to have recognized that California law does not tolerate large out-of-state companies misleading customers. They appear poised to send a message to Viracon about its lack of corporate responsibility."
The premier Class-A office building in Burbank, California, The Pointe, serves high-end tenants in entertainment industries such as Warner Brothers. Constructed in 2009, the 13 exterior curtain wall of the 13-story building is encased in seamless glass panels.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott Hennigh, Hennigh Law CorporationMr. Hennigh may be contacted at
Scott.hennigh@hennighlaw.com
Matthew Graham Named to Best Lawyers in America
September 10, 2018 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogWendel Rosen’s very own
Matt Graham has been selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America© 2019 in the area of Construction Law. First published in 1983, Best Lawyers is the oldest and most respected peer-review publication in the legal profession.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
GRSM Named Among 2025 “Best Law Firms” by Best Lawyers
December 23, 2024 —
Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani has been recognized in the 2025 "Best Law Firms" survey published by Best Lawyers.
To be eligible for a 2025 ranking, a law firm must have at least one lawyer recognized in the 2025 edition of the Best Lawyers in America in a "Best Law Firms" practice area and geographic jurisdiction. GRSM announced earlier this year that 166 lawyers were recognized in the 2025 edition of Best Lawyers in America®, while 74 lawyers were named to the 2025 edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch. Explore the full list of GRSM recognized attorneys.
No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. For details about Best Law Firms' methodology, please click here.
The firm received National "Tier 1" rankings in the following areas:
- Admiralty and Maritime Law
- Commercial Litigation
- Construction Law
- Insurance Law
- Litigation – Construction
- Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Supreme Court of New York Denies Motion in all but One Cause of Action in Kikirov v. 355 Realty Assoc., et al.
April 28, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFIn the construction defect suit Kikirov v. 355 Realty Associates, LLC, et al., the Supreme Court of the State of New York granted a dismissal of the plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, but denied the defendants’ motion in all other respects. The plaintiff alleged breach of contract, among other claims. “355 Realty was the sponsor of 355 Kings Highway Condominium, a condominium project located at 355 Kings Highway, in Brooklyn, New York. The condominium units were allegedly marketed as ‘ultra luxury condos,’ and a ‘Manhattan style condominium building,’ which would be the ‘epitome of luxury and quality.’ The construction of the six-story 28 unit residential condominium building began in approximately November 2003. […] Plaintiff entered into a purchase agreement, dated December 21, 2005, with 355 Realty (which was executed on behalf of 355 Realty by Michael Marino, as its member) for the purchase of Unit 2G in the building.”
The plaintiff alleged that construction defects emerged soon after moving into the unit: “After taking occupancy of his condominium unit, plaintiff allegedly experienced serious leakage and moisture problems in his unit, which caused a dangerous mold condition to develop, in addition to causing actual damage to the structural elements of his unit. According to plaintiff, the walls, moldings, and wood floors of his unit are constantly wet and moist, and there is severe buckling of the wood floors. Plaintiff claims that these problems have caused his unit to be uninhabitable. Plaintiff alleges that he has been forced to remove all of his personal belongings from his unit and has been unable to occupy his unit.”
According to the plaintiff, Foremost attempted to repair the defects, but only made the situation worse: “Specifically, plaintiff asserts that Foremost’s contractors opened his walls to remove the stained drywall, but never corrected the cause of the leaks, destroyed the walls, and never properly taped and painted the sheet rock. Plaintiff alleges that Foremost repaired the openings in a defective manner. Plaintiff also claims that his floor was repaired at that time by a subcontractor hired by Foremost, but the basic structural problem was never resolved and the leaks continued, compromising the beams and causing the mold conditions, in addition to all of the physical damage present in the unit. On or about July 16, 2009, plaintiff allegedly sent a notice of the defects to 355 Realty and to the managing agent designated by the condominium board, by certified mail, return receipt requested. Plaintiff asserts that defendants have failed and refused to repair and remedy the defective condition, and that the damage is extensive and requires major structural repairs.”
The plaintiff filed suit on May 4, 2010, and the original complaint asserted eight causes of action. “By decision and order dated September 13, 2010, the court granted a motion by defendants to dismiss plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, his third cause of action for breach of implied warranties, his fifth cause of action for negligence as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, his seventh cause of action for negligence as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ, and his eighth cause of action for violations of General Business Law § 349 and § 350, and granted plaintiff leave to replead his first cause of action for breach of contract as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, his fourth cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, and his sixth cause of action for breach of contract as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ.”
The plaintiff amended their complaint on October 18, 2010, and “has repleaded these three causes of action by asserting a first cause of action for breach of contract as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, a second cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, and a third cause of action for breach of contract as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ. In addition, plaintiff, in his amended complaint, has added a fourth cause of action for fraud.”
The defendants, on the other hand, “argue that each of the four causes of action alleged by plaintiff in his amended complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and that plaintiff’s amended complaint must be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). Defendants also cite to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), and (5), asserting that dismissal is also required based upon documentary evidence and the Statute of Limitations contained in the limited warranty.” The defendants’ motion to dismiss the first cause of action, breach of contract against 355 Realty, was denied: “While defendants dispute that the alleged defects are actually structural in nature, plaintiff’s allegations as to their structural nature are sufficient, at this juncture, to withstand defendants’ motion to dismiss. Thus, dismissal of plaintiff’s first cause of action must be denied.”
Next, the court reviewed the second cause of action, which was breach of statutory warranties: “Defendants’ motion also seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, which alleges that, under applicable law, including General Business Law § 777-a, et seq., the sponsor warranted to purchasers of units that the units would be constructed in a skillful, careful, and workmanlike manner, consistent with proper design, engineering, and construction standards and practices, and free of material latent, design, and structural defects. Defendants argue that General Business Law § 777-a, known as the housing merchant implied warranty, is inapplicable to this case because it is limited to the construction of a ‘new home,’ defined in General Business Law § 777 (5) as ‘any single family house or for-sale unit in a multi-unit residential structure of five stories or less.’ As noted above, the building in which plaintiff’s condominium unit is located is a six-story building.”
The motion to dismiss the second cause of action is denied. The court provided this reasoning: “the full text of the offering plan has not been provided, the court is unable to examine the entire written agreement so as to determine the purpose of the inclusion of the text of General Business Law § 777.”
In the third cause of action, the plaintiff alleges “a breach of contract claim as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ based upon their contract with 355 Realty, pursuant to which they agreed to be the general contractors/construction managers for the condominium, to undertake oversight responsibility for the design and construction of the condominium, to prepare and/or review drawings, plans, and specifications for the condominium, and to otherwise manage and oversee the project. Plaintiff alleges that Vision, Foremost, and MMJ breached their contractual obligations in that the condominium units were improperly and inadequately designed and constructed, and completed in an incompetent and unworkmanlike manner, with material design and construction defects.”
The motion to dismiss the third cause of action was denied as well: “Plaintiff alleges, in his amended complaint, that Vision, Foremost, and MMJ have acknowledged notice of the defects and have not denied that they are responsible for providing a warranty to plaintiff. Plaintiff also refers to this warranty, in his amended complaint, by noting that paragraph 16 of the purchase agreement stated that the ‘[s]eller shall not be liable to . . . the [p]urchaser for any matter as to which an assignable warranty . . . has been assigned . . . to [p]urchaser and in such case the sole recourse of such . . . [p]urchaser . . . shall be against the warrantor . . . except that in the event a contractor or subcontractor is financially unable or refuses to perform its warranty . . . [s]eller shall not be excused from its obligations enumerated in the [offering p]lan under Rights and Obligations of Sponsor.’ Consequently, the court finds that dismissal of plaintiff’s third cause of action as against Foremost and MMJ must also be denied.”
In the fourth cause of action, the plaintiff alleges “that defendants made false statements and representations orally, in advertisements, and in the purchase agreement, that the condominium was properly and adequately designed and constructed and completed in a competent and workmanlike manner, in accordance with the condominium plans and specifications and proper design, engineering, and construction standards and practices consistent with applicable standards for a first class, luxury condominium in Brooklyn.”
The court dismissed the fourth cause of action stating, “it must be dismissed because it is duplicative of his first cause of action for breach of contract.” Therefore, “defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint is granted to the extent that it seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, and it is denied in all other respects.”
Read the court’s decision… Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
