Client Status Request
BLOG
Shareholder Stuart Sobel’s recent win for firm client Malcolm Drilling caught the attention of the editors and reporters at the Daily Business Review, South Florida exclusive business daily and official court newspaper. The article, which first appeared in the newspaper’s website on August 2nd under the headline “Miami Attorney Secures Major Arbitration Win for Malcolm Drilling in $15M Dispute,” focuses on Stuart’s work in securing a major decision in an arbitrated settlement for Malcolm, which is the one of the largest foundation builders for major construction sites in the country. It reads:
. . . [T]he notable legal victory was for San Francisco-based Malcolm Drilling Co., which was awarded more than $6.4 million in an arbitration case against Archer Western Contractors LLC and de Moya Group Inc. of Atlanta.
Co-counsel Stuart Sobel of Siegfried Rivera was at the helm of the case for Malcolm Drilling.
The dispute involved a large-scale infrastructure project in South Florida that is well-known to Broward County residents and visitors. More than $15 million in claims and counterclaims over work on a seven-mile stretch of I-95 and I-595 in Broward County were at stake.
Sobel said, “$6.4 million was our claim, but then we were met with a counterclaim of $7 million, so we were actually fighting over about $15 million. Before arbitration, we went to mediation, and this is a case of ‘should have settled at mediation,’ and I’m sure the other side now wishes they had come to mediation with a different tactic.”
Sobel’s previous cases involved successfully litigating disputes involving New York’s World Trade Center and Baltimore’s Camden Yards.
Malcolm Drilling’s counsel, Joseph W. Lawrence II, founding shareholder of Vezina, Lawrence & Piscitelli in Fort Lauderdale, did not return calls for comment by press time.
While not always the case, Sobel noted that complex construction disputes are best handled by a panel of construction law experts rather than a judge or jury.
The case focused on construction delays known to the thousands of daily commuters on the stretch of highway connecting West Broward County to downtown Fort Lauderdale.
It included issues as unusual as delays caused by manatees under equipment barges.
“It turned out that there were errors in the design,” Sobel said, explaining his client was not involved in the design process. The delays resulted in more days on the job than anticipated.
Neither Archer Western nor the state was willing to compensate Malcolm Drilling for the extra work.
The next step was to call on the contract language.
Sobel said, “The contract calls for arbitration for dispute resolution, so we followed the demand for arbitration. We went to mediation. We were completely stonewalled at mediation when we were met with the counterclaim that blamed us for all sorts of stuff.”
The American Arbitration Association’s three-arbitrator panel, along with all participating attorneys, reviewed a mountain of documentation and exhibits throughout the proceedings.
“The biggest challenge was breaking down, for a knowledgeable panel of arbitrators, the 14 claims into bite-sized pieces that could be readily understood,” Sobel said.
He praised the arbitration panel for understanding the complexities of the case and credited his co-counsel, Douglas Oles of Smith Currie Oles in Seattle, who meticulously demonstrated the contractor’s numerous missteps and delays.
The award included attorney fees and costs, while rejecting Archer Western’s counterclaim entirely.
The arbitration process, lasting over 16 months, involved extensive depositions and hearings at Siegfried Rivera’s offices.
“My expertise is in a courtroom,” Sobel said. “My experts teach me whatever the case is. I know my way around a courtroom, and I like that because, in our lives, so little is black and white. In the courtroom, it’s black and white. You win or you lose.”
This decision underscores that arbitrations with closely matched claims and counterclaims do not always result in split decisions.
Sobel said the result illustrates the effectiveness of expert arbitration in resolving complex construction disputes and choosing the right expert witnesses to argue the case. . .
The article concludes by noting that Stuart has focused exclusively on construction law and litigation since 1995, and he is quoted saying that he probably litigates “as many if not more construction-related cases than most lawyers in the country.”
Our firm salutes Stuart and his team for securing this important decision, which earned the spotlight in an article by the Daily Business Review. Click here to read the complete article in the newspaper’s website (registration required).