Virginia Federal Court upholds unilateral arbitration clause in construction contract. On a Project for the United States Air Force at Langley Air Force Base in Hampton, Virginia, an electrical Subcontractor filed a lawsuit for nonpayment under the Federal Miller Act. The clause provided that at Prime’s “sole election, any and all disputes . . . may be decided by mediation, arbitration or [ADR] proceedings as chosen by [Prime].”
The Court upheld the clause finding: (1) it was not vague simply because only one party (the Prime) could invoke its terms when the other party (Subcontractor) had already agreed to allow the Prime this right and (2) the contract as a whole was supported by sufficient consideration (i.e., benefit or detriment to each party).
This appears to be the first case by a Virginia court (state or federal) to interpret and uphold such a clause, which allowed only the Prime Contractor, not the Subcontractor, to resolve disputes by arbitration. North Carolina, West Virginia, and now Virginia agree on upholding unilateral arbitration clauses. Maryland disagrees.
When it’s time to butt heads, know how the local turf (court) will interpret the clause.
U.S. f/u/b/o Harbor Construction Co., Inc. v. T.H.R. Enterprises, Inc., 311 F.Supp.3d 797 (U.S. District Ct., Eastern District of Virginia, April 26, 2018)
Acceptance and Intervening Cause Avoided Construction Warranty Claim
Like cars, computers, and appliances, construction projects include warranties too. Similarly, construction project warranties are limited to causes within the contractor’s control […]
Insurance Company Had No Duty to Defend Under Eight Corners Rule
To decide if an insurer has a duty to defend, a Virginia State or Federal Court may only look at the allegations in the complaint and the insurance policy to determine if a judgment against the insured will be covered by the policy.
Owner SOL When Mandatory Mediation Didn’t Toll Statute of Limitations
Contract interpretation strives to find the meaning of all parts together.
Government Must Review Claims in Good Faith, Not “Conjure Up” a “Baseless Retaliation”
A contracting officer’s review of certified claims submitted in good faith is not intended to be a negotiating game where the agency may deny meritorious claims to gain leverage over the contractor.
Termination for Convenience was OK to Get a Lower Price
When Massachusetts’ highest State court rejected Federal law on termination for convenience (T4C) a public entity’s “sole discretion . . . for […]
Pirates (Parties) Should Arbitrate Arbitrability
Yes, the word “pirates” is an anagram for “parties.” Participants in a lawsuit, arbitration, or mediation are collectively referred to as parties. Are they pirates too?
Very Bad Behavior Without Bad Faith is Not a Breach of Contract
Despite “abhorrent” behavior by the Army Corps of Engineers, a majority of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals held there was […]
Government Construction Contracts Require Bonds, Even When Contract Doesn’t Say So
Yesterday (Nov. 5, 2018), the Fed. Cir. Ct. of Appeals again endorsed the Christian doctrine, which can make unstated requirements part of a government contract.
Government’s Negligent Estimate a Trick?
The Government’s negligent estimate failed to provide the “most current information available.”
