Garret Murai | California Construction Law Blog | October 26, 2015 It’s a tactic as old as war itself. You can often gain a strategic advantage by selecting the location of battle. The same is true in litigation. But as the next case illustrates, when it comes to disputes between contractors (and design professionals), it isn’t always… Continue reading Bar Against Forum Selection Clauses in Construction Contracts Extended to Design Professionals
Month: October 2015
Insurer’s Claim Denial may Violate State Consumer-Protection Statutes even when the Insurer has no Duty to Defend
Gabe Weaver | Ball Janik | October 6, 2015 As I wrote in an earlier blog post (see my August 10, 2015 article here), insurers have a duty to defend their policyholders against any potentially covered loss, which means that insurers are required to defend and attempt to settle claims on behalf of their policyholders… Continue reading Insurer’s Claim Denial may Violate State Consumer-Protection Statutes even when the Insurer has no Duty to Defend
Owner’s Claim for Defective Work not Barred by Prior Arbitration
Stan Martin | Commonsense Construction Law LLC | October 26, 2015 A contractor who successfully pursued payment in arbitration objected when the public authority owner subsequently filed a lawsuit claiming defective work. The contractor argued that the lawsuit was barred by doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel, but the Appellate Court of Connecticut has… Continue reading Owner’s Claim for Defective Work not Barred by Prior Arbitration
Arbitration Rulings are Final, Even When the Arbitrators Get It “Wrong on the Law”
David K. Nelson | Kean Miller | August 13, 2015 Parties involved in the construction industry have long been familiar with mandatory arbitration as a dispute resolution procedure. Originally arbitration was said to be more efficient and less expensive than litigation. Over time, experience has shown that arbitration is not necessarily more efficient or more… Continue reading Arbitration Rulings are Final, Even When the Arbitrators Get It “Wrong on the Law”
Oregon’s Broad Duty to Defend Extends to “Additional Insureds”
Kevin Mapes | Ball Janik | August 19, 2015 On August 19, 2015, the Oregon Court of Appeals issued its opinion in West Hills Development Co. v. Chartis Claims, Inc., reaffirming the broad nature of an insurer’s duty to defend, even when that duty is owed to an “additional insured.” Contracting parties rely on indemnity… Continue reading Oregon’s Broad Duty to Defend Extends to “Additional Insureds”