Photo of Ryan Deroo

Ryan focuses his practice on construction law and government contracts matters. He counsels and represents owners, EPC contractors, construction managers, general contractors, and subcontractors on a wide range of projects including water treatment facilities, mass transit systems, and large commercial buildings.

BML Properties Ltd. v. China Construction America Inc., et al., 101 N.Y.S. 3d 597 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

On July 2, 2019, a New York appellate court upheld a lower court ruling by Justice Saliann Scarpulla, denying a state-backed Chinese contractor’s attempt to compel international arbitration arising out of a dispute involving the construction of the multibillion Baha Mar mega-resort in the Bahamas.  As a result of the ruling in BML Properties Ltd. v. China Construction America Inc., et al., 101 N.Y.S. 3d 597 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019), aff’ing No. 657550/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 24, 2019), the $2.25 billion lawsuit alleging “one of the largest construction-based frauds in this hemisphere” will remain in the New York courts.  As explained below, for those in the international construction industry, the case will be worth following.

Continue Reading New York Appellate Court Affirms Decision to Deny Motion to Compel Arbitration in Multi-Billion Dollar Construction Dispute

Thomaston Acquisition, LLC v. Piedmont Construction Group, Inc., No. S19Q0249, 2019 BL 202176 (Ga. June 03, 2019)

The acceptance doctrine represents the principle that an independent contractor is not liable for damages occurring after the contractor has completed its work and the work is turned over to and accepted by the owner, provided that the defect was readily observable on reasonable inspection and was not inherently dangerous.
Continue Reading Georgia’s Supreme Court Re-Affirms The Acceptance Doctrine

SMJ Gen. Constr., Inc. v. Jet Commer. Constr., LLC, No. S-16785/16985, 2019 BL 131640 (Alaska Apr. 12, 2019)

In 2016, Jet Commercial Construction, LLC (“Jet”) entered into a subcontract with SMJ General Construction, Inc. (“SMJ”) to supply materials and labor for the construction of a restaurant in Hawaii.  The subcontract contained a dispute resolution provision that required the parties to first mediate any dispute and then submit it to arbitration if mediation was unsuccessful.  It also included a choice-of-law and venue provision designating Oklahoma Law and the courts of Cleveland County, Oklahoma for any lawsuits pertaining to the Agreement’s enforcement.

Continue Reading Alaska’s Supreme Court Holds That Executing a Settlement Agreement Releases Parties from Contractual Obligation to Arbitrate Disputes

Aspic Eng’g & Constr. Co. v. ECC Centcom Constructors LLC, No. 17-16510, 2019 BL 26363 (9th Cir. Jan. 28, 2019)

Aspic Engineering and Construction Company (“Aspic”), a local Afghan subcontractor, entered into multiple subcontracts with ECC Centcom Constructors and ECC International (“ECC”), the prime contractor, to construct buildings and facilities in Afghanistan.  The subcontracts contained terms and conditions “applicable to all U.S. Government subcontracts,” and mandated that Aspic owed ECC the same obligations that ECC owed to the federal government.  The subcontracts also incorporated multiple Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) clauses, including FAR 49.2 through 49.6, which govern the recovery of expenses in the event a contractor is terminated for convenience, i.e. required documentation and procedures.

Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Finds Arbitration Award Is ‘Irrational’ Because It Disregards the Contract’s Plain Text Simply to Reach a Just Result

Paulozzi v. Parkview Custom Homes, L.L.C., 2018 Ohio App. Lexis 4739 ( Nov. 1, 2018)  

 This case arose out of a dispute between homeowners and their contractor.  Dissatisfied with the work, the Paulozzis sued their contractor, Parkview Custom Homes, alleging, inter alia, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud.  In response, Parkview moved to stay the litigation and compel arbitration under the agreement’s arbitration provision.

The parties did not dispute that the contract required the Paulozzis to proceed through arbitration.  But the contract also specified that “the arbitration shall be conducted under the auspices of the Ohio Arbitration and Mediation Center in accordance with its rules, at Cleveland, Ohio.”  However, when the Paulozzis filed suit, the OAMC appeared to be defunct.

The Paulozzis argued that because the chosen forum no longer existed, the arbitration provision was unenforceable.  In response, Parkview maintained that the essential purpose of the arbitration provision was still capable of substantial accomplishment, and that the court should enforce it.  In the end, the trial court held that the original forum was defunct, and because the arbitration provision did not provide for an alternative forum, it was unenforceable under the doctrine of impossibility.  On appeal, the Ohio Court of Appeals reversed.
Continue Reading Parties Must Proceed to Arbitration Despite Unavailability of Arbitration Forum Specifically Named in the Contract