Drywall Systems, Inc. v. ZVI Construction Co., Inc., 51 Mass. App. Ct. 353 (2001)
The Massachusetts' Appeals Court ruled in a case of first impression that arbitrators had the power to award a subcontractor treble damages under c.93A, §11 for unfair trade practices by a general contractor. The court also ruled that the arbitration statute barred the arbitrators from awarding c. 93A legal fees to the subcontractor. The court, however, did award legal fees incurred in the appeal. For the time being [1] this decision resolved the long standing controversy over the arbitrability of c. 93A claims under broad form arbitration agreements common to construction contracts.
Curley Customs v. Bank of Boston, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 197 (2000)
The Appeals Court has recognized the right of a Contractor to recover payment for work performed, directly against the Bank financing construction, even though there was no contract between them, where the Bank induced the Contractor to continue performing after the owner-developer defaulted on the general contract.
Goodrow v. Lane Bryant, 432 Mass. 165 (2000)
The Supreme Judicial Court ruled that an employer who fails to pay the proper amount for overtime is not automatically liable for multiple damages absent an intentional violation of law or reckless indifference.
[1] This decision is very recent and defendant has applied for further appellate review by the SupremeJudicial Court of Massachusetts. If the SJC decides to hear this appeal, both issues of multiple damages and legal fees in arbitration are subject to reconsideration. Corwin & Corwin LLP represents the plaintiff subcontractor Drywall in this appeal, and will report any further development in a future issue of Construction Law Comments.
This
newsletter is intended to provide general information of interest to the
construction industry. It is not intended to provide specific legal advice or
to address fact specific issues. For that you should consult your legal
counsel. Corwin & Corwin LLP assumes no liability in connection with the
use of this newsletter. The Supreme Judicial Court may consider this material
advertising.
©1992-2001 Corwin & Corwin LLP. All rights reserved.