January 2009 – Construction Law

K&L Gates Arbitration World, January 2009

Jan 15 2009

Arbitration World is an update for clients and contacts on recent development in international arbitration law and practice.

From the Editors

Welcome to the 7th edition of Arbitration World, a publication from K&L Gates’ Arbitration Group which highlights significant developments and issues in international and domestic arbitration for executives and in-house counsel with responsibility for dispute resolution.

In This Issue

• News from around the World
• Prospects for Investment Treaty Claims Arising Out of the Financial Crisis
• Arbitration Cases in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008-2009 Term
• Anti-suit Injunctions in Support of Arbitration Agreements – Are They Lawful in Europe?
• Is International Arbitration Delivering?
• Arbitration in Dubai: New Structures and Legal Instruments
• Arbitration Clauses in Consumer Contracts – Recent English Decisions
• Ordre Public in Enforcement and Annulment of Arbitral Awards in Germany
• Outer Bounds of Arbitrability in Texas
• Sports Arbitration Update

View the January 2009 Edition here.

Idaho’s High Court Analyzes 15 Factors for Determining Whether a Worker is an Independent Contractor or an Employee

Jan 14 2009

Excell Constr., Inc., v. Idaho Dep’t of Commerce and Labor, 145 Idaho 783, 186 P.3d 639 (2008)

This appeal arises out of an Idaho Industrial Commission finding that certain sheetrock workers hired by Excell Construction were employees rather than independent contractors. At issue was whether Excell would be required to pay $6,353 in unemployment insurance taxes and penalties. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court held the workers were independent contractors and reversed the Commission’s finding.

Contractual Limitation of Liability in Engineer / Survey Contract Upheld

Jan 06 2009

Blaylock Grading Co., LLP v. Smith, 658 S.E.2d 680 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008)

In this case, a grading contractor sued a surveyor (who was also an engineer) for breach of contract and negligence regarding mistakes in surveying work which resulted in the contractor having to incur costs to import fill to raise the elevation of the site. The contract between the contractor and surveyor contained a provision limiting the surveyor’s liability to $50,000. The surveyor unsuccessfully moved for partial summary judgment based on the limit of liability. Following a jury verdict against the surveyor for $574,714, the surveyor moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the trial court denied, ruling that the limit of liability was void as against public policy. The North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that the limitation of liability was valid and enforceable.

Archive:January 2009