If you need to figure out whether that disappointing arbitration award you received can be vacated for conflict of interest on the part of the arbitrator, here's the recent Division 1 case to read.
Copy of opinion also available here Download file
There's a relatively new blog prowling the real estate and construction landscape, maintained by the Tacoma law firm of Dickson Steinacker. Let's see if they can keep up with the DWT real estate blog! Hey, a little friendly competition is a good thing, right?
Good luck to the Dickson firm with their nice looking, informative blog.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled an arbitration clause can be applied against (or for the benefit of) persons who do not sign the clause, as long as governing state law makes that extension to nonsignatories possible.
At issue in Arthur Anderson LLP v Carlisle was a tax shelter scheme gone bust, which in turn generated suits by individual investors who had put money into the tax shelters against the advisors and lawyers who recommended the illegal schemes. Certain LLCs created for the purpose of facilitating the tax scheme (but not the individual investors themselves) signed contracts containing arbitration clauses with one or more of the defendant advisors.
When the investors filed suit in federal district court, the defendants moved for a stay under Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) on the ground that the issues in the suit were "referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing" under Section 3. The plaintiff/investors fought this, contending that they are not individually bound by whatever clauses the LLCs had signed.
The Supreme Court held that state law governs the issue of whether such clauses can be extended to nonsignatories, and there's nothing in the FAA itself that preempts or overrides whatever the outcome is under that state law.
Note: Washington state law is well-settled on the fact that nonsignatories can in certain circumstances be bound by -- or take advantage of -- arbitration clauses. See McClure v. Davis Wright Tremaine, 77 Wn. App. 312 (1995).
Division 2 today joins Division 1's recent decision in Carlile v. Harbour Homes holding that claims for fraudulent misrepresentation are barred by the Economic Loss Rule.
Copy of opinion also available here Download file
Mike Purdy's timely and useful summary of the ins and outs of the Washington State public works retainage law, recently revised by SHB 1555, is available here in this post to his public contracting blog.
Enter keywords:
