Construction and Engineering Lawyers & Attorneys : K&L Gates Law Firm : Financing, Development, Dispute Resolution, Government Contracting

Best Interiors, Inc. v. Millie and Severson, Inc., 2008 WL 1122182 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2008)

A dispute arose between general contractor Millie and Severson, Inc. and subcontractor Best Interiors, Inc. related to the construction of a hospital in Whittier, California.  Best sued M&S, the hospital and two building inspectors, alleging various delay and disruption damages caused by improper management and inspection of the project.  M&S petitioned to compel arbitration of the dispute and to stay Best’s lawsuit, based on arbitration clauses in the subcontract and the prime contract.  Best opposed on the grounds that (1) the building inspectors could not be compelled to arbitrate; (2) the arbitration might result in inconsistent results; and (3) the court had authority under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1281.2 to refuse to enforce the arbitration clause.  The trial court granted Best’s petition.  On appeal, M&S raised two arguments.  First, M&S argued that the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., applied to the arbitration agreement and did not give the trial court discretion to deny arbitration.  Second, M&S argued that, even if California law applied to the arbitration agreement, there was no possibility of conflicting rulings.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Mobil Cerro Negro Ltd. v. Petroleos de Venezuela SA, 2008 WL 678144, [2008] EWHC 532 (Queen’s Bench Div., Commercial Ct.)

In this case, a freezing injunction was set aside, having been granted in support of claims which were the subject of ICC arbitration seated in New York.  The parties were parties to a contract for the exploitation of oil rights, the Claimant being a US corporate and the Defendant the Venezuelan state oil company.  Venezuelan legislation passed in 2007 mandated the “migration” of non-Venezuelan interests in Venezuelan oil to Venezuelan entities, and gave rise to claims under the parties’ contract.  Mobil obtained a worldwide freezing injunction up to a value of $12 billion and Petroleos applied to have the injunction set aside.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

New legal implications arise from building environmentally friendly

By K&L Gates attorneys Patrick J. Perrone and Loly Garcia Tor, and David Crump Jr., Director of Legal Research for the National Association of Homebuilders

Appearing in the March 24, 2008 issue of the New Jersey Law Journal, this article explores the potential risks builders may face when building and marketing “green” homes and buildings.

View the full article here.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Braes of Doune Wind Farm (Scotland) Ltd. v. Alfred McAlpine Bus. Servs. Ltd., 2008 WL 678195, [2008] EWHC 426 (Queen’s Bench Div., Tech. & Constr. Ct.)

In this case an agreement to arbitrate selected the Arbitration Act 1996 as the applicable procedural law but stated that the seat of any arbitration was "Glasgow, Scotland," where the Act does not apply.  It was held that, construing the contract as a whole, the arbitration was seated juridically in England, with Glasgow serving as the location of the arbitral hearing.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

John Forster Emmott v. Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd., 2008 WL 576947, [2008] EWCA Civ 184 (Ct. of App., Civil Div.)

In this case, the Court of Appeal upheld an order permitting the disclosure of documents filed in a London arbitration to the courts of certain overseas jurisdictions in related proceedings.  In the London arbitration Wilson had originally made claims of fraud against the claimant Emmott but had subsequently withdrawn them.  Wilson repeated those allegations in the overseas proceedings to which Emmott was not a party.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

By K&L Gates attorneys Peter R. Morton, Ian Meredith, John L. Boos, Joanna A. Diakos.

Arbitration World is an update for clients and contacts on recent development in international arbitration law and practice.

Welcome to the Fifth Edition of Arbitration World, a publication from K&L Gates' Arbitration Group which aims to highlight significant developments and issues in international arbitration for executives and in-house counsel with responsibility for dispute resolution.

In this edition, in terms of U.S. developments, we look at the growth of "class arbitration" in the U.S. and Canada, review the case law on challenging the scope of submission to an arbitrator in the U.S. and take an early look at an important Supreme Court case regarding the scope for Federal Courts to review arbitral awards as well as the proposed "Arbitration Fairness Act."

We consider two aspects of the continuing development of the ethical framework for arbitrators:  guidelines from the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators on the interviewing of prospective arbitrators and a U.S. Court of Appeal case on the duty to investigate potential conflicts of interest.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Lepp v. V.M.S. Realty Trust, 2008 WL 375971 (Mass. App. Div. Feb. 8, 2008)

This is a per curiam decision by the Massachusetts Appellate Division that addresses the liability of homebuilders and vendors.  In Lepp, the purchasers of a newly built home sued the vendor of the home for breach of contract for failure to install the agreed upon insulation.  The purchasers also sued the builder, who was an employee of the vendor, for breach of contract, breach of the implied warranty of good workmanship, intentional infliction of emotional distress and violation of M.G.L. c. 93A — the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act.  The trial court found for the plaintiffs on all counts in a jury-waived trial and the defendants appealed.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

CZAR, Inc. v. Heath, 939 A.2d 837 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2008)

In this case, a homeowner brought claims against a custom kitchen contractor under New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act.  During the construction of a new home, the homeowner had contracted directly with a custom kitchen contractor for the installation of custom kitchen cabinets, interior doors, a front door, and certain moldings.  The trial concluded that the home improvement practice regulations found in N.J.A.C. 13:45A-16.1 to 16.2 were not applicable to plaintiff and, therefore, dismissed the CFA claims.  The trial court reasoned that the kitchen contractor's work was not a “home improvement” within the meaning of the regulation because the construction and installation of the doors, cabinets, and moldings were part of the construction of a new residence and, therefore, excluded from the definition of “home improvement.”

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Time Warner Entm’t Co., L.P., 244 S.W.3d 885 (Tex. App. Feb. 6, 2008)

In this case, a general contractor brought a declaratory judgment action against its subcontractor’s primary and umbrella insurers to recover the cost of removing and replacing fiber optic cable that the subcontractor installed improperly.  Although the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the general contractor, the Dallas Court of Appeals reversed.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks