Look Up And Look Out: Increased Antitrust Enforcement Of Horizontal No-Poach Agreements Signals Heightened Scrutiny Of Vertical Agreements May Be Next
November 28, 2022 —
John F. Finnegan, III & Dominick Weinkam - ConsensusDocsIn the current regulatory environment, it is important for contractors to remain vigilant of heightened anti-competitive enforcement in the construction and procurement spheres by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ). Such vigilance should include, among other things, regular review of applicable laws and implementation of related updates to compliance policies, as well as careful evaluation of joint venture (JV), subcontractor, and teaming agreements.
Recent DOJ Activity Opens The Door To Broader Antitrust Exposure For Contractors
Many contractors include exclusivity and non-compete clauses in their vertical agreements, including subcontractor agreements and certain types of JV and teaming agreements. In fact, many widely available “checklists” for drafting these agreements recommend including such provisions; however, under U.S. antitrust law, particularly as enforced by the DOJ in the last 1-2 years, exclusivity and non-compete clauses may be construed as unduly competition-restricting. Although no court has yet held that exclusivity and non-compete clauses in vertical agreements violate antitrust laws, recent aggressive enforcement activity by the DOJ with regard to horizontal no-poach agreements suggests that the investigatory headwinds may be blowing in that direction.
Reprinted courtesy of
John F. Finnegan, III, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs) and
Dominick Weinkam, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. Finnegan may be contacted at jfinnegan@watttieder.com
Mr. Weinkam may be contacted at dweinkam@watttieder.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sales of Existing U.S. Homes Unexpectedly Fell in January
February 22, 2018 —
Sho Chandra – BloombergSales of previously owned U.S. homes unexpectedly fell in January to a four-month low, indicating a shortage of available properties is increasingly hindering the real-estate industry, a National Association of Realtors report showed Wednesday.
Sales growth is limited by an acute shortage of inventory, which is pushing up home prices faster than wage growth. The group noted that property prices have jumped 41 percent over the past five years, while wages have gained 12 percent.
If the current pace of sales continues -- which NAR doesn’t anticipate -- purchases would be lower than in 2017. At the same time, steady hiring and elevated confidence to make large purchases, as well as tax cuts that are boosting Americans’ take-home pay, are expected to sustain demand for housing in much of the nation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sho Chandra, Bloomberg
Sometimes It’s Okay to Destroy Evidence
August 17, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled in the case of Miller v. Lankow that Mr. Miller was within his rights to remediate his home, even though doing so destroyed the evidence of water intrusion.
Linda Lankow built a home in 1992. In 2001 or 2002, Lankow discovered a stucco problem at the garage which she attributed to moisture intrusion. She asked the original contractor to fix the wall. In 2003, Lankow attempted to sell her home, but the home inspection revealed fungal growth in the basement. Lankow made further repairs, including alterations to the landscaping.
In 2004, Lankow put her house on the market once again and entered into an agreement with David Miller. Miller declined to have an independent inspection, as the home had been repaired by professional contractors.
In 2005, Miller put the house on the market. A prospective buyer requested a moisture inspection. The inspection firm, Private Eye, Inc. found “significant moisture intrusion problems.”
Miller hired an attorney who sent letters to the contractors and to Lankow and her husband. Lankow’s husband, Jim Betz, an attorney, represented his wife and sent a letter to Miller’s attorney that Miller had declined an opportunity to inspect the home.
In 2007, Miller’s new attorney sent letters to all parties that Miller had decided to begin remediation work on the house. All stucco was removed. Miller then filed a lawsuit against the prior owners, the builders, and the realtors.
Two of the contractors and the prior owners moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Miller had spoliated evidence by removing the stucco. They requested that Miller’s expert reports be excluded. The district court found for the defendants and imposed sanctions on Miller.
The Minnesota Supreme court found that “a custodial party’s duty to preserve evidence is not boundless,” stating that “it may be particularly import to allow remediation in cases such as the one before us.” Their reasoning was that “remediation of the moisture intrusion problem in the home may be necessary, even essential, to address immediate health concerns.”
Given that Miller needed to remediate the problem in order to continue living there, and that he had given the other parties a “full and fair opportunity to inspect,” the court found that he was within his rights. The court reversed the judgment of the lower court and remanded it to them for review.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Think Twice Before Hedging A Position Or Defense On A Speculative Event Or Occurrence
July 13, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesSometimes, hedging a position on a potential occurrence is not prudent. Stated differently, hedging a position on a contingent event is not the right course of action. The reason being is that a potential occurrence or contingent event is SPECULATIVE. The occurrence or event may not take place and, even if it does take place, the impact is unknown.
An example of hedging a defense on such a potential occurrence or contingent event can be found in a construction dispute involving a federal project out of the Eastern District of Virginia, U.S. f/u/b/o Champco, Inc. v. Arch Insurance Co., 2020 WL 1644565 (E.D.Va. 2020). In this case, the prime contractor hired a subcontractor to perform electrical work, under one subcontract, and install a security system, under a separate subcontract. The subcontractor claimed it was owed money under the two subcontracts and instituted a lawsuit against the prime contractor’s Miller Act payment bond. The prime contractor had issued the subcontractor an approximate $71,000 back-charge for delays. While the subcontractor did not accept the back-charge, it moved for summary judgment claiming that the liability for the back-charge can be resolved at trial as there is still over $300,000 in contract balance that should be paid to it. The prime contractor countered that the delays caused by the subcontractor could be greater than $71,000 based on a negative evaluation in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (“CPARS”). A negative CPARS rating by the federal government due to the delays caused by the subcontractor would result in a (potential) loss of business with the federal government (i.e., lost profit) to the prime contractor. The main problem for the prime contractor: a negative CPARs rating was entirely speculative as there had not been a negative CPARs rating and, even if there was, the impact a negative rating would have on the prime contractor’s future business with the federal government was unknown. To this point, the district court stated:
In this case, [prime contractor’s] claim for damages is wholly speculative. [Prime contractor] has not produced any evidence that its stated condition precedent—a negative CPARS rating—will actually occur and will have a negative impact on its future federal contracting endeavors. Specifically, [prime contractor] has not identified any facts that indicate that it will be subject to a negative CPARS rating or any indication of the Navy’s dissatisfaction with its work as the prime contractor on the Project… Further, a CPARS rating is only one aspect taken into consideration when federal contracts are awarded. In sum, there is no evidence of the following: (1) a negative CPARS rating issued to [prime contractor]; (2) [prime contractor’s] hypothetical negative rating will be the result of the delay [prime contractor] alleges was caused by [subcontractor]; or (3) [prime contractor’s] hypothetical negative CPARS rating will result in future lost profits.
U.S. f/u/b/o Champco, Inc., supra, at *2 (internal citation omitted).
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
New Mexico Architect Is Tuned Into His State
February 08, 2021 —
David M. Brown - Engineering News-RecordFor 40-plus years, Van Gilbert has combined his love for the topography, history and culture of New Mexico with an equally passionate dedication to designing not just structures, but buildings that help create communities.
Reprinted courtesy of
David M. Brown, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Accessibility Considerations – What Your Company Should Be Aware of in 2021
May 03, 2021 —
Heather H. Whitehead - Newmeyer DillionAccessibility claims increased significantly in 2020, with this specific type of ADA-related case increasing by 23% from 2019 to 2020.1 This includes cases filed in federal court and those filed in California state court under the Unruh Act - with a direct reference to violation of the ADA.2
In California alone, a total of 989 cases were filed in 2020, representing almost 30% of all accessibility cases filed in the United States.3 These claims go beyond the traditional complaints related to a website maintained by an organization. While desktop websites dominate the overall number of lawsuit claims nationally, mobile apps continue to get significant attention along with a new trend in video content related claims. These video claims demand that all video have closed captions and audio descriptions.4
The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has created a surge in the reliance on websites and other platforms to accommodate working from home, online learning, as well as ordering groceries, food or other items online in an effort to stay home and safe. However, along with this substantial increase in demand, many users who rely on accessibility features have found many websites and related mobile applications to be inaccessible for their needs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Heather H. Whitehead, Newmeyer DillionMs. Whitehead may be contacted at
heather.whitehead@ndlf.com
Seller Cannot Compel Arbitration for Its Role in Construction Defect Case<
March 01, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe buyer of a leaky home in Venice, California cannot be compelled to arbitration with the seller in a construction defect lawsuit, according to a decision in Lindemann v. Hume, which was heard in the California Court of Appeals. Lindemann was the trustee of the Schlei Trust which bought the home and then sued the seller and the builder for construction defects.
The initial owner was the Hancock Park Trust, a real estate trust for Nicholas Cage. Richard Hume was the trustee. In 2002, Cage agreed to buy the home which was being built by the Lee Group. Cage transferred the agreement to the Hancock Park Trust. Hancock had Richard Nazarin, a general contractor, conduct a pre-closing walk through. They also engaged an inspector. Before escrow closed, the Lee Group agreed to provide a ten-year warranty “to remedy and repair any and all damage resulting from water infiltration, intrusion, or flooding due to the fact that the door on the second and third floors of the residence at the Property were not originally installed at least one-half inch (1/2”) to one inch (1”) above the adjacent outside patio tile/floor on each of the second and third floors.”
Cage moved in and experienced water intrusion and flooding. The Lee Group was unable to fix the problems. Hume listed the home for sale. The Kamienowiczs went as far as escrow before backing out of the purchase over concerns about water, after the seller’s agent disclosed “a problem with the drainage system that is currently being addressed by the Lee Group.”
The house was subsequently bought by the Schlei Trust. The purchase agreement included an arbitration clause which included an agreement that “any dispute or claim in Law or equity arising between them out of this Agreement or any resulting transaction, which is not settled through mediation, shall be decided by neutral, binding arbitration.” The warranty the Lee Group had given to Hancock was transferred to the Schlei trust and Mr. Schlei moved into the home in May 2003.
Lindemann enquired as to whether the work done would prevent future flooding. Nazarin sent Schlei a letter that said that measures had been taken “to prevent that situation from recurring.” In February, 2004, there was flooding and water intrusion. Lindemann filed a lawsuit against the Lee Group and then added the Hancock Park defendants.
The Hancock Park defendants invoked the arbitration clause, arguing that Lindemann’s claims “were only tangentially related to her construction defect causes of action against the Lee Group.” On June 9, 2010, the trial court rejected this claim, ruling that there was a possibility of conflicting rulings on common issues of law. “With respect to both the developer defendants and the seller defendants, the threshold issue is whether there was a problem with the construction of the property in the first instance. If there was no problem with the construction of the property, then there was nothing to fail to disclose.” Later in the ruling, the trial court noted that “the jury could find there was no construction defect on the property, while the arbitration finds there was a construction defect, the sellers knew about it, and the sellers failed to disclose it.” The appeals court noted that while Hancock Park had disclosed the drainage problems to the Kamienowiczs, no such disclosure was made to Sclei.
The appeals court described Hancock Park’s argument that there is no risk of inconsistent rulings as “without merit.” The appeals court said that the issue “is not whether inconsistent rulings are inevitable but whether they are possible if arbitration is ordered.” Further, the court noted that “the Hancock Park defendants and the Lee Group have filed cross-complaints for indemnification against each other, further increasing the risk of inconsistent rulings.”
The court found for Lindemann, awarding her costs.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Delay In Noticing Insurer of Loss is Not Prejudicial
April 28, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Tenth Circuit reversed a district court's determination that untimely notice of the loss was prejudicial, eliminating the insurer's coverage obligations. B.S.C. Holding, Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4492 (10th Cir. March 11, 2014).
In January 2008, the insured's employees detected an inflow of water in a salt mine and feared dissolution of the salt or structural problems. The insured tried to devise a solution. Two and a half million dollars were spent to find the cause of the water inflow and to identify a solution. In April 2010, the insured determined the inflow was caused by an improperly sealed oil well. In July 2010, the insured notified Lexington of the water inflow. The ultimate proof of loss was for $7.5 million, which included remediation measures that the insured had performed before notifying Lexington.
Lexington's all-risk policy required the insured to notify the company in writing as soon as practicable.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
