International Arbitration

Subscribe to International Arbitration via RSS

Charles Boyd Construction Inc. v. Vacation Beach, Inc.
No. 5D06-2168, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 9597 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App., June 22, 2007)
Following the precedent of the United States Supreme Court in Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 (U.S. 2006), the Fifth District Court of Appeal of Florida reversed its prior decision and held that whether a contract is illegal in its entirety and, thus, an arbitration provision contained therein would be unenforceable, must in the first instance be decided by the arbitrator, and not a court.

DGS v. Pittsburgh Building Co.
2007 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 160 (Pa. Commw. Ct. April 5, 2007)
The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court held that a contractor was entitled to recover penalty interest and attorney fees under the Pennsylvania Prompt Payment Act from the Department of General Services (“DGS”) when DGS had engaged in arbitrary and vexatious conduct by withholding payment for costs associated with a five-month suspension and unsuitable soil conditions when DGS was aware of, yet failed to disclose, problematic soil conditions.

City of Ferndale v. Florence Cement Co
2006 Mich. App. LEXIS 129, No. 254572 (January 17, 2006)
In City of Ferndale v. Florence Cement Co. and Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., 2006 Mich. App. LEXIS 129, No. 254572 (January 17, 2006), the Court held that the engineer’s decision under the disputes resolution provision of the contract did not constitute a final and binding arbitration award.

Montgomery v. Decision One Financial Network
2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3031 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 1, 2005)
A borrower brought an action against her lender in connection with the lender’s institution of foreclosure proceedings. The lender moved to dismiss the complaint and sought an order compelling plaintiff’s compliance with the claims resolution provisions contained in the parties’ arbitration agreement. Relying upon the Pennsylvania Superior Court’s decision in Lytle v. CitiFinancial Services, Inc., 2002 Pa. Super. 327, 810 A.2d 643 (2002), the borrower argued in opposition that the arbitration agreement was presumptively unconscionable because it excepted from the scope of arbitrable disputes certain remedies available only to the lender, such as foreclosure. In the Lytle case, the Pennsylvania Superior Court several years earlier declared that “under Pennsylvania law, the reservation by [the lender] of access to the courts for itself to the exclusion of the consumer creates a presumption of unconscionability.”

Carll v. Terminex Int’l. Co., L.P.
2002 PA Super 44; 793 A.2d 921; 2002 Pa. Super. LEXIS 183 (2002)
The Carlls (“Plaintiffs”) instituted an action against Terminex International Company (“Terminex”) and other entities (collectively the “Defendants”), claiming that they sustained severe and permanent injuries as a result of Terminix’s negligent application of pesticides in and around their home. The Defendants responded with a petition to compel arbitration of the matter in accordance with the arbitration provisions of the contract at issue.

Sokaogon Gaming Enterprise Corp. v. Tushie-Montgomery Assocs, Inc.,
86 F.3d 656, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 13399 (7th Cir. June 5, 1996)
District Court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Indian tribe on grounds of tribe’s sovereign immunity; by signing contract with explicit arbitration clause, tribe agreed that it could be sued.

St. Lawrence Explosives v. Worthy Bros. Pipeline,
916 F.Supp. 187 (N.D.N.Y. 1996)
The Petitioner, St Lawrence, requested confirmation and judgment to be entered upon an arbitration award in favor of St Lawrence and against the Respondent, Worthy Brothers.
St Lawrence Explosives and Worthy Brothers Pipeline entered into a subcontract for construction of a gas pipeline within New York which would connect into an international pipeline. The subcontract was a Standard Form of Agreement Between Contractor and Subcontractor: AIA Document A401. Article 6.1 of the subcontract provided that if the Prime Contract did not provide for arbitration, then disputes would be resolved in accordance with the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules (“AAA Rules”). Article 6.4 provided that the award shall be final and judgment may be entered upon it. But, Article 6.4 in the above subcontract agreement was crossed out.

Waterfront Marine Construction, Inc. v. North End 49ers Sandbridge Bulkhead Groups A, B and C, 251 Va. 417; 468 S.E.2d; 1996 Va.
In 1988, the North End 49ers Sandbridge Bulkhead Group (49ers) entered into a contract with Waterfront Marine Construction, Inc. (WMC) after accepting its bid to construct a bulkhead. The agreement included a provision providing for arbitration of any controversy or claim “arising out of or relating to the Contract or the breach thereof.”
An engineering firm in 1989 inspected the installed bulkhead and pronounced it to be defective, whereupon the 49ers filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (AAA) seeking damages, and WMC filed a demand seeking to recover the unpaid balance of the construction price. In 1991, following a hearing, the AAA panel entered an award denying the 49ers’ claim and granting the WMC’s claim, conditional that WMC perform certain work within a certain time limit to the satisfaction of an independent engineer. Unable to agree on the independent engineer, WMC did not perform the specified work and later on that year severe storms hit the bulkhead, causing damage.

Hazleton Area School District v. Bosak,
671 A.2d 277 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996).
In this case, neither of the arbitration provisions provided in the 1988 and 1989 agreements specifically stated that an action in tort for negligence should be arbitrated. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the decision of the trial court and…

Cleveland Jet Center, Inc. v. Structural Sales Corp.,
1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 4113 (Ohio Ct. App., Sept. 22, 1995).
Utilization of AIA Document A111, Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner & Contractor, 1978 Edition, without express incorporation of AIA Document A201, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, left owner free to refuse arbitration. 
Cleveland Jet Center, Inc. (“Jet Center”), a corporation in the business of repairing, refurbishing and modifying jet aircraft, entered into a contract with Structural Sales Corp. (“Structural”), in which Structural agreed to design and build a hangar and office area at the Lost Nation Airport in Willoughby, Ohio. Structural selected the American Institute of Architects (“AIA”) Document A111, Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner & Contractor, 1978 Edition” as the contract form and drafted the blank terms.