Disputes Will Not Be Subject to Arbitration Provision If There Is No “Significant Relationship”
November 29, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesAs you know from prior articles, arbitration is a creature of contract. This means if you want your disputes to be resolved by binding arbitration, as opposed to litigation, you want to make sure there is an arbitration provision in your contract. If there are certain types of disputes you do not want subject to arbitration, you want to specify those types of disputes/claims in your arbitration provision. If you are not sure, make sure to discuss the pros and cons of arbitration with your counsel when drafting and negotiating the contract. However, even with a broad arbitration provision, there are times where a dispute may still fall out of the scope of the arbitration provision, i.e., the dispute is not arbitrable. If this occurs, such dispute will be resolved by litigation. Parties that have buyer’s remove and do not want to arbitrate their dispute may try to make this argument that the dispute is not subject to the scope of the arbitration provision. There are times this argument carries weight because the dispute has no significant relationship to the agreement with the arbitration provision, as shown below.
In Deweees v. Johnson, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D2356b (Fla. 4th DCA 2021), a plaintiff purchased a home in a private residential community. The purchase contract with the developer contained a broad arbitration provision that materially provided that, “all post-closing claims, disputes, and controversies…between purchaser and seller will be resolved by binding arbitration except those arising under section G.5 and G.6 above.” Dewees, supra. Sections G.5 and G.6 provided that the purchaser will not interfere in the sales process with other purchasers and will not interfere with workmen during the construction process. There was also a workmanship and structural defect warranty for the dwelling that also contained an arbitration provision.
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
Is Your Construction Business Feeling the Effects of the Final DBA Rule?
June 04, 2024 —
Nathaniel Peniston - Construction ExecutiveThe Biden administration’s final rule “Updating the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts Regulations” took effect on Oct. 23, 2023. In “the first comprehensive regulatory review in nearly 40 years,” the Department of Labor has returned to the definition of “prevailing wage” it used from 1935 to 1983—before Microsoft released the first Windows operating system.
Construction industry leaders must be aware that this is the most comprehensive review and overhaul of the act in 40 years; with it, the DOL has attempted to modernize its approach to wage creation and fringe benefit allocation. There are more than 50 procedural changes to the act, which means it is very important for contractors to be aware of wage classifications when bidding, performing work on Davis-Bacon Act projects and using applicable fringe dollars for bona fide benefits.
UNDERSTANDING THE CHANGES
Some of the critical adjustments included in the final rule that contractors should be aware of include:
Wage determination changes during a project: Historically, contractors could rely on the wage determinations used to win a project for the life of the project. However, the final rule now requires the contractor to use current wage determinations when a contract is changed or extended. The DOL “proposed this change because—like a new contract—the exercise of an option requires the incorporation of the most current wage determination.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Nathaniel Peniston, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Peniston may be contacted at
npeniston@fbg.com
CGL Policy May Not Cover Cybersecurity and Data-Related Losses
March 25, 2024 —
Susana Arce - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.The construction industry, like many other industries, has experienced an increased reliance on, and implementation of, technology in the past few years. Smart phones and tablets are used on most project sites, computers are an integral part of the planning process, and various software programs are used throughout the construction process. Likewise, much of the machinery and equipment used during construction (e.g., total stations, trucks, tower cranes) is interconnected, and in some cases, operated or monitored remotely.1
With an increase in technology comes a risk of cybersecurity and data-related losses. Many large businesses purchase Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) insurance and assume cybersecurity and data-related losses are covered. Unfortunately, this is generally not the case. CGL policies typically cover three general types of damage: bodily injury, property damage, and advertising injury.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Susana Arce, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Arce may be contacted at
SArce@sdvlaw.com
California Supreme Court Declares that Exclusionary Rule for Failing to Comply with Expert Witness Disclosures Applies at the Summary Judgment Stage
March 01, 2017 —
Bruce Cleeland & Michael J. Worth - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Perry v. Bakewell Hawthorne, LLC, 2017 No. S233096, the California Supreme Court held that when a trial court determines an expert opinion is inadmissible because expert disclosure requirements were not met, the opinion must be excluded from consideration at summary judgment if an objection is raised.
Plaintiff Mr. Perry sued defendants Bakewell Hawthorne, LLC and JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, alleging personal injuries after plaintiff fell at a property owned by Bakewell and leased by Chase. Defendant Chase served plaintiff with a demand for the exchange of expert witness information. Plaintiff made no disclosure. Thereafter, the trial date was continued. Defendant Bakewell subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment. In opposition, plaintiff submitted declarations of two experts opining that the stairs on which plaintiff fell were in disrepair and failed to comply with building codes and industry standards.
Reprinted courtesy of
Bruce Cleeland, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Michael J. Worth, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cleeland may be contacted at bcleeland@hbblaw.com
Mr. Worth may be contacted at mworth@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
What California’s COVID-19 Reopening Means for the Construction Industry
July 05, 2021 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogThis past Wednesday, Governor Newsom announced that California would reopen after being in lockdown for over a year due to COVID-19. Gone is Governor’s Stay at Home Executive Order. Gone is California’s Blueprint for a Safer Economy. And gone is the state’s somewhat confusing four-tier, yellow (minimal), orange (moderate), red (substantial) and purple (widespread), risk-level mapping system.
So what does this mean for the construction industry?
Well it’s not quite business back to usual. CalOSHA’s Standards Board voted this past Thursday to pass revised COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standards (“Revised Standards”). That same day, Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-09-21 implementing the Revised Standards immediately while they are being reviewed by the Office of Administrative Law.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Insurer Could Not Rely on Extrinsic Evidence to Circumvent Its Duty to Defend
February 14, 2023 —
Lorelie S. Masters & Yaniel Abreu - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogIn
First Mercury Insurance Co. v. First Florida Building Corp., et al., a federal district court ordered that an insurer had a duty to defend its insured against an underlying personal injury lawsuit. 2023 WL 23116, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 3, 2023). First Mercury is a cautionary tale about how insurers may try to circumvent their obligations by improperly considering extrinsic evidence when determining whether they have a duty to defend their insureds.
First Mercury is a coverage dispute over an underlying personal injury lawsuit that was filed against the insured, a construction company, for injuries the claimant allegedly sustained at a construction site. Id. The claimant alleged that he was at the construction site as an invitee who was “working with” the insured. Id. The insurer agreed to defend the insured against the personal injury lawsuit under a reservation of rights. Id. However, the insurer filed a coverage action seeking a declaration that coverage for the personal injury lawsuit was excluded under the policy. Id. Specifically, the insurer, on summary judgment, argued that the claimant was an employee of the insured who was injured in the course of his employment, thus falling within the employer’s liability and workers’ compensation exclusions in the policy. Id. Although the insurer acknowledged that the personal injury complaint against the insured triggered its duty to defend under the policy, the insurer argued that those exclusions relieved its duty to defend or indemnify the insured. Id.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Yaniel Abreu, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Abreu may be contacted at yabreu@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Justice Didn’t Ensure Mortgage Fraud Was Priority, IG Says
March 19, 2014 —
Tom Schoenberg and Phil Mattingly – BloombergThe U.S. Justice Department failed to pursue mortgage fraud in the years following the 2008 financial crisis with the same level of commitment that it publicly touted, an internal watchdog said.
While Attorney General Eric Holder said mortgage-fraud cases were among the department’s top priorities, the Federal Bureau of Investigation internally ranked them the lowest of six criminal threats, according to a report released today by Inspector General Michael Horowitz. The FBI devoted fewer resources to such cases even though Congress allocated $196 million for fiscal years 2009 to 2011 to pursue such conduct.
The Justice Department has been criticized by lawmakers and judges for not bringing more criminal cases against individuals following the collapse in housing prices and ensuing market turmoil. In August, Holder retracted a public statement after Bloomberg News reported that the department had inflated its track record of mortgage-fraud prosecutions.
Mr. Schoenberg may be contacted at tschoenberg@bloomberg.net; Mr. Mattingly may be contacted at pmattingly@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tom Schoenberg and Phil Mattingly, Bloomberg
Is Settling a Bond Claim in the Face of a Seemingly Clear Statute of Limitations Defense Bad Faith?
October 11, 2021 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsWe have often discussed payment and performance bonds here at Construction Law Musings, most often in the context of payment bond claims relating to federal and state-owned. construction projects. A late 2020 case out of the Eastern District of Virginia federal court examined what happens after such a claim, in this case, based upon a developer’s subdivision bonds, is made and negotiations commence between the surety and the claimant. Specifically, Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Ransgate Corp., et. al. looked at claims for indemnity by a surety and the principal/indemnitors in the event that the Surety settled such a claim.
In the Ramsgate case, Surety provided two separate subdivision subcontract bonds to Ramsgate. Pursuant to those bonds and the indemnity clause of its indemnity agreement, the Surety sought reimbursement of its $80,000.00 settlement payment to the local building authority that it paid to resolve what was originally a claim for over $420,000.00 by the City. The project was started in 2002 and after many years of failures to complete (according to the City of Suffolk), the City made its claim for expenses in 2017. Ramsgate claimed that it completed the subdivisions in 2003.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
