As many owners and contractors involved in the international construction industry are aware, international arbitration is a popular dispute resolution device for international construction disputes because, in part, international arbitration awards are, broadly speaking, enforceable in practically every jurisdiction in the world. This facet of international arbitration has been set out in the U.N. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention) — a multilateral convention that requires the courts of the contracting states to recognize and enforce arbitration awards made by tribunals seated in other contracting states. Now, with 160 signatory states and the increasing popularity of international arbitration around the world, the New York Convention is widely viewed as one of the most successful international conventions ever.
MBlock Investors, LLC v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc., etc., et al., 44 Fla. L. Weekly d1432 (3d DCA 2019)
A Florida Appellate Court recently reversed a trial court’s decision granting summary judgment finding an issue of fact based upon an expert affidavit. The underlying matter involved an action by MBlock Investors against Lend Lease (US) Construction, Inc. for latent defects following MBlock’s acquisition of a property commonly known as the Midblock Miami East Project (the “Property”).
DAK Americas Mississippi, Inc. v. Jedson Engineering, Inc. et al, No. 1:18cv31-HSO-JCG, 2019 BL 208838 (S.D. Miss. June 6, 2019)
This dispute arose out of the design and construction of a concrete storage slab at DAK’s polymer resin manufacturing facility located in Hancock County, Mississippi. DAK hired Ohio-based Jedson to design and oversee the construction of a cement slab suitable for commercial operating loaders and other heavy equipment necessary to transport, unload, and stack shipping containers. DAK allegedly discovered substantial cracking and chipping of the cement, and filed suit in federal court claiming Jedson failed to design a slab suitable for DAK’s intended purposes. DAK asserted claims for negligent design, negligent construction management, and breach of contract.