Construction Dispute

Subscribe to Construction Dispute via RSS

A Practice Note outlining key procedural and strategic considerations for a party defending a construction arbitration. This Note addresses the crucial initial steps a respondent should take on receiving a demand for arbitration, including reviewing the arbitration agreement for potential jurisdictional challenges and assessing the procedural framework established by the relevant institutional rules, such as those of the American Arbitration Association (AAA), JAMS, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), or the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR). It explores important tactical decisions, such as whether to file a detailed answering statement, assert counterclaims, or seek joinder of third parties or consolidation with other proceedings. This Note also provides guidance on developing defenses, managing pre-hearing procedures like disclosure and dispositive motions, and evaluating the use of expedited arbitration. It examines various hearing strategies designed to streamline proceedings and effectively present a defense, including the use of a chess clock, witness conferencing (hot tubbing), and different approaches to expert testimony.

Pennsylvania’s statute of repose, enacted in 1976, has long provided construction industry participants with finality by barring claims related to construction defects raised more than 12 years after the completion of construction. However, the bright-line application of the Pennsylvania statute of repose is now under review by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

On May 22, the Supreme Court in Kousisis, et al., v. United States,[1] affirmed the convictions of a painting subcontractor and its owner (defendants) under the federal wire fraud statute for conspiring to defraud the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) by exploiting the DOT’s disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) program in connection with two Philadelphia construction projects.[2] As explained below, the Court resolved a divide among the circuits over the validity of a federal fraud conviction where the defendant did not seek to cause the victim net pecuniary loss. The Court held that where a fraudster seeks to induce the government into a transfer of its money or property, that loss is sufficient to sustain a fraud conviction, regardless of whether the government has suffered pecuniary loss.

Accreditation: An extract from Thomas Reuters Practical Law. The full document is available at https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/Ia6598a02a95a11ee8921fbef1a541940/Discovery-Disclosure-in-US-Construction-Arbitration.

Troutman Pepper attorneys Albert Bates, Zach Torres-Fowler, and Jamey Collidge published a Practice Note explaining key issues in the discovery (disclosure) process of a domestic US construction arbitration, such as conducting disclosure in an…

In 2023, the construction industry saw significant developments, such as a downward trend in the commercial real estate market, a continued focus on sustainability, and the ongoing impact of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. International construction arbitration remained a preferred dispute resolution method for large-scale projects, while the energy…

Earlier this year[1] the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals joined the Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and D.C. circuits in the much-anticipated en banc decision of Corporacion AIC, SA v. Hidroelectrica Santa Rita S.A., where it held that the grounds for vacatur under Chapter 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) may also apply to nondomestic arbitration awards (e.g., arbitration awards rendered in the U.S. but involving a non-U.S. party).[2] The court’s decision overruled two of its prior cases, holding that Article V of the New York Convention and Chapter 2 of the FAA provided the exclusive grounds for challenging the enforcement of a nondomestic arbitration award.[3] The decision is of significance because it brings the Eleventh Circuit — which encompasses the increasingly popular arbitration seats of Atlanta and Miami — in line with other circuit courts that have considered this issue.[4]

Reposted from The Dispute Resolver with permission.

You are conducting the final hearing of a high-dollar construction arbitration. Opposing counsel hands you the next document that counsel plans to use in questioning the witness on the stand. You notice that the document is bates stamped but has no exhibit number. So, you quickly consult opposing counsel’s exhibit list and – gasp – you find that the document is not on the list. What do you do? Do you object?