For plaintiff’s claims to be subject to the arbitration provision in the purchase contract, they must not only arise from the purchase contract, but also have a significant relationship to the purchase contract.

Disputes Will Not Be Subject to Arbitration Provision If There Is No “Significant Relationship”

As you know from prior articles, arbitration is a creature of contract. This means if you want your disputes to be resolved by binding arbitration, as opposed to litigation, you want to make sure there is an arbitration provision in your contract. If there are certain types of disputes you do not want subject to arbitration, you want to specify those types of disputes/claims in your arbitration provision. If you are not sure, make sure to discuss the pros and cons of arbitration with your counsel when drafting and negotiating the contract. However, even with a broad arbitration provision, there are times where a dispute may still fall out of the scope of the arbitration provision, i.e., the dispute is not arbitrable. If this occurs, such dispute will be resolved by litigation. Parties that have buyer’s remove and do not want to arbitrate their dispute may try to make this argument that the dispute is not subject to the scope of the arbitration provision. There are times this argument carries weight because the dispute has no significant relationship to the agreement with the arbitration provision, as shown below.

In Deweees v. Johnson, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D2356b (Fla. 4th DCA 2021), a plaintiff purchased a home in a private residential community. The purchase contract with the developer contained a broad arbitration provision that materially provided that, “all post-closing claims, disputes, and controversies…between purchaser and seller will be resolved by binding arbitration except those arising under section G.5 and G.6 above.” Dewees, supra. Sections G.5 and G.6 provided that the purchaser will not interfere in the sales process with other purchasers and will not interfere with workmen during the construction process. There was also a workmanship and structural defect warranty for the dwelling that also contained an arbitration provision.

Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

The landowner sued for trespass, nuisance, takings, and inverse condemnation.

Georgia Local Government Drainage Liability: Nuisance and Trespass

A long-running dispute between a landowner and a municipality has escalated to the Georgia Court of Appeals and in the federal court for the Northern District of Georgia.[1] The municipality maintained a stormwater system that discharged on property uphill from the landowner’s property. The uphill property was used as an illegal dump, and debris washed downhill from the dump to the landowner’s property. The debris clogged the landowner’s surface water drainage system, which caused flooding of the property and a building.

State Case
The landowner sued for trespass, nuisance, takings, and inverse condemnation. While the other claims were barred by the four-year statute of limitations, the court addressed the plaintiff-landowner’s claim for continuing nuisance.

Municipalities may be liable when they negligently construct or maintain a sewer or drainage system that causes repeated flooding of property, such that it results in a continuing, abatable nuisance.[2] For a municipality to be liable for maintenance of a nuisance:

the municipality must be chargeable with performing a continuous or regularly repetitious act, or creating a continuous or regularly repetitious condition, which causes the hurt, inconvenience or injury; the municipality must have knowledge or be chargeable with notice of the dangerous condition; and, if the municipality did not perform an act creating the dangerous condition, . . . the failure of the municipality to rectify the dangerous condition must be in violation of a duty to act.[3]

Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

This article introduces general background of the Act, identifies subcontractors who may qualify for protections under the Act, and suggests ways to preserve the rights as prime contractors.

Miller Act CLAIMS: Finding Protections and Preserving Your Rights

The Miller Act (the “Act”), which requires the prime contractor to furnish a performance bond and a payment bond to the government, protects “all persons supplying labor and materials carrying out the work provided for in the contract.”[1] Despite its broad language, courts have limited the parties who may actually assert a claim under the Act. This article introduces general background of the Act, identifies subcontractors who may qualify for protections under the Act, and suggests ways to preserve the rights as prime contractors.

Brief Background of the Miller Act

Under the Miller Act, there are two types of bonds the prime contractor furnishes to the government in a federal construction contract of more than $100,000[2]

1. Performance Bond

A performance bond protects the United States and guarantees the completion of the project in accordance with the contract’s terms and conditions.[3] This bond must be with a surety that is satisfactory to the officer awarding the contract and in the amount the officer considers adequate for government protection.[4] If a contractor abandons a project or fails to perform, the bond itself will cover the government’s cost of substitute performance. Thus, the performance bond disincentivizes contractors from abandoning projects and provides the government with reassurance that an abandonment will not create delays or additional expenses.

Ms. McGraw may be contacted at dmcgraw@foxrothschild.com