President Trump’s Inauguration Signals a Potential Increase in Infrastructure Projects

When then-candidate Donald J. Trump first began making public statements about what would become his infrastructure plan back in August of 2016, observers were uncertain as to what exactly they could expect. Just before that time, candidate Hillary Clinton put forth a $275 billion infrastructure plan, which Trump proposed to “at least double.” Pressed for specifics, campaign staff promised that details would come later in the summer of 2016. By November, the $500 billion proposal had grown to $1 trillion and evolved into a bullet-point list of criticisms and goals on his campaign website. The prospect of infrastructure investment, a long-recognized need, was welcomed by those across the political spectrum, even if the details were still murky.

Faced with cynicism, even within his own party, especially as to cost, Trump clarified that he intended to fund his infrastructure plan through a combination of tax credits and “innovative financing programs” that would provide a “10-to-1 return on investment.” This financing program was also met with criticism, however, in that, because the thought was that such a program relies on a tax credit, only revenue-generating projects with collectible user fees, such as toll roads and bridges, would be capable of being funded in this manner. Further criticism was aimed at the specter of increasing privatization of once-public assets and the invitation for tax fraud perpetrated on an under-funded IRS that the financing scheme might bring with it. A more specific articulation of the plan authored by investor Wilbur Ross and controversial economist Peter Navarro drew further attention to its potential gaps in reasoning and practical shortcomings.

Continue Reading

Tragedy at Construction Project Leads to New Safety Rules and Regulations in Boston

The city of Boston will soon require all companies and individuals planning to perform construction work in the city to provide their safety records prior to obtaining a permit. The new ordinance arose out of a tragedy that struck in October during a Boston construction project which resulted in the death of two workers. While working in a trench, a water main broke drowning the two workers in the flooded trench.

The investigation following  the tragic accident revealed that the company who employed the men had a long and troubled history of safety violations and unpaid OSHA fines. The violations included tens of thousands of unpaid fines for violations dating back to at least 2012. The 2012 violation included a nearly $74,000 fine for repeated safety infractions and one “willful” violation which is the most severe penalty imposed by OSHA. Despite this troubling history the Boston officials had no knowledge of the violations prior to the construction project that led to the death of the workers.

In an effort to protect construction workers engaged on Boston city projects and to hold those companies who commit safety violations accountable Boston Mayor Marty Walsh filed an ordinance proposal a month after the tragedy which would require any company or individual receiving work permits in Boston to provide their safety record, including current or unresolved safety issues and any OSHA violations. The Boston City Council approved the proposed ordinance the week of December 16th and the rule will become effective as soon as the Mayor signs the measure.

The hope is that this ordinance will bring a new era of construction to Boston, in which needless injuries and deaths to construction workers can be avoided by ensuring that companies and individuals who work in the city have a history of complying with safety rules and regulations. The ordinance will also have a significant impact on those companies who previously performed work in Boston and do not have a strong history of safety compliance.

Recipe for a Project Bankruptcy: Part 2
The Contractor in Bankruptcy Through the Lens of the Owner

My last article examined strategies for construction managers facing an owner bankruptcy. Now, looking through the lens of the owner, let’s examine best practices when it is the contractor who has filed for bankruptcy.

Throughout New England and the United States the construction industry continues to thrive with several new projects underway and on the horizon. Last month, Dodge Data & Analytics projected that total U.S. construction will increase in 2017 by five percent. Lenders and sureties continue to aggressively underwrite contractors and subcontractors allowing businesses to grow quickly. But growing too quickly can lead to cash flow and labor allocation issues both of which are ingredients for a project bankruptcy.

Continue Reading

District Court Preliminarily Enjoins Majority of Department of Labor “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces” Final Rule

On October 24, 2016, the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas preliminarily enjoined the majority of the Department of Labor’s Final Rule implementing President Barack Obama’s Executive Order 13673 that imposed reporting requirements of specified labor law violations on federal government contractors and subcontractors.

The Executive Order provided that contractors and subcontractors for federal contracts with an estimated value exceeding $500,000 must report any labor law violations during the preceding three years of fourteen federal labor law statutes, executive orders or equivalent state laws. On August 25, 2016, the Department of Labor issued its Final Rule implementing the Executive Order.

The challengers to the Final Rule alleged that the Final Rule, among other things, exceeded the Department of Labor’s Authority, was preempted by other federal labor laws, violated the First Amendment, violated contractors’ due process rights, and was arbitrary and capricious. The District Court agreed that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits and issued a preliminary nationwide injunction regarding the Final Rule’s reporting requirements. However, the District Court upheld the Final Rule’s paycheck transparency requirement.

While a temporary reprieve for federal contractors, we will continue to monitor future legal developments due to the preliminary nature of the injunction.

Connecticut Finally Adopts New Building Code Effective October 1, 2016

After a public comment period ending this past August, the Connecticut Codes and Standards Committee voted to accept the proposed 2016 State Building Code and 2016 State Fire Safety Code. The new code replaces the 2005 State Building Code, and its amendments, and will apply to all permit applications made on or after October 1, 2016. The 2016 Code incorporates several national model codes, along with Connecticut-specific amendments, including:

  • 2012 International Building Code
  • 2009 ICC/ANSI A117.1 Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities Code
  • 2012 International Existing Building Code
  • 2012 International Plumbing Code
  • 2012 International Mechanical Code
  • 2012 International Energy Conservation Code
  • 2014 NFPA 70 National Electric Code
  • 2012 International Residential Code

Connecticut’s amendments to the various model codes, as published by the Office of the State Building Inspector, can be found here.

Continue Reading

Harsh Consequences for Contractor’s False Payment Certifications in Massachusetts

On most construction projects, a project owner will require the contractor to certify that it has fully paid each of its subcontractors as a condition to the owner making  payment to the contractor.  The purpose of these certifications is to ensure timely payment to all subcontractors and to protect the owner from claims or liens by unpaid subcontractors. A recent Massachusetts decision highlights the importance of these certifications and the harsh consequences the contractor may expect if the contractor intentionally submits false payment certifications to the owner.

In G4S Tech., LLC v. Mass. Technology Park Corp., 2016 Mass. Super. LEXIS 36, 33 Mass. L. Rep. 301 (Mass. Super. March 30, 2016), the Contractor sought millions of dollars for alleged extra work and its contract balance for work performed on a state and federally funded project to design and construct a fiber optic network in western Massachusetts. The Owner disputed the extra work and contract balance claims because the Contractor intentionally breached the contract by submitting false payment certifications. The Contractor did not deny that it submitted false payment certifications but stated that because it eventually paid the subcontractors, and the late payments did not cause a delay on the completion of the project, any harm that arose was “de minimis”. Therefore, the Contractor argued that its submission of false payment certifications should not prevent it from collecting its contract balance and pursuing its multi-million dollar claim.  In addition, the contractor argued that it should be entitled to recover the cost of the work performed under the equitable theory of quantum meruit, which entitles one who performed work to recover the cost of that work in the absence of a contract or agreement.

Continue Reading

Looking Forward: A workman’s view of the construction business and the practice of construction law.

A few weeks back my colleague, mentor and friend Greg Faulkner wrote a post here that looked back on his 25 years as a construction lawyer.  It was a very thoughtful piece and frankly I think it was one of the best legal blog posts I have read.  You can access it here:

As you might expect, more than a few things that Greg alluded to got me thinking about the construction business and how it’s intertwined with the practice of construction law.  As a construction lawyer who sits “in the trenches”, and has for some time, I feel that I can also offer a valuable perspective.

One of the things that never ceases to amaze me is how often construction professionals and even other lawyers are unaware that “construction law” is a practice focus.  Even though some feel that lawyers run the industry ( (let me assure you we do not) you’d be surprised at how much of the industry misconstrues the nature of our practice and our role in delivering and helping to keep a project on the rails and out of the halls of justice.

Probably the biggest misconception I find is that a construction stakeholder needs to call their lawyer only when a project starts to move sideways (off the schedule or over the budget) or when an impasse is reached on a claim.  In fact, I feel that the opposite is true.  A construction lawyer wears two distinct but related hats.  We are certainly dispute resolution lawyers – it is a large part of who we are and what we do.  We help our clients identify and prosecute or defend claims.  We mediate, we arbitrate and we try cases to a judge or jury.  But, we are also very much transactional lawyers – we write, negotiate and facilitate the timely and appropriately timed execution of design professional, project/program manager and contractor/construction manager contracts.  Our dual role as “litigators” and “transactional lawyers” allows us a somewhat unique perspective.  Each of us has helped clients deal with a project that has gone all the way down the tubes and ended up in front of a judge or arbitrator.  We have battled claims and, as Sonny Coreleone once said, we have “gone to the mattresses”.   I feel that these experiences help us be more effective on the front end of a project.  Meaning, because we have seen things go wrong, we can better identify project risks before they arise so that when things do go wrong our client is prepared.  With that in mind, we can advise our clients, based on practical experience, how best to manage, allocate and mitigate risk.

In the ideal scenario we are one of the first stops on the project continuum.  We hope that our clients, who include owners, developers, PMs, designers, construction managers, trade contractors or other construction professionals, come to us as soon as they become involved in a project.  As any construction practitioner will tell you, a well written, clear, concise and fairly balanced contract is the first step in delivering a successful project.

Over the last few years I have witnessed a distinct shift in the industry where stakeholders have increased their focus on up-front risk identification and allocation.  Greg alluded to this in a couple of sections in his piece (re: partnering and teaming and the industry’s evolving view of dispute resolution).  That leads me to where I see things today and where I hope things go in the future . . .

I tend to work mostly with developers, owners and to a lesser, but still significant degree, with contractors/construction managers.  Over the last five to eight years or so my experience has been that developers, owners and construction professionals have been increasingly and more sharply focused on teaming, collaboration, risk sharing and collective goal setting.

Today I often see our owner clients involving a construction professional before design commences in earnest to identify and discuss construction/project feasibility and budget with real-world reference points.  Likewise, I see our construction professional asking for access to the design as soon as possible.  I continually see owners discussing the process and facilitating the collaboration of their design and construction professionals so that they can eliminate confusion, lack of clarity or constructability issues arising from a design and turn “assumptions and qualifications” into tight drawings, specs and reliable budget line items.  I also see a distinct focus on open lines of communication, asking for honest and dependable information and recognizing the collective goal that all parties are in the game to make a profit – hopefully something very close to the profit that they anticipate at the project’s outset.  I also regularly see, while discussing contract terms in concept, our clients concerned with fair and balanced risk allocation in light of developing a continuing relationship with the party with whom they are negotiating.  In short, it seems to me that more often than not stakeholders are looking to develop relationships of trust based on open and honest communications.

Now, with all of that said, I and the rest of our group spend a large part of our time helping our clients prosecute and defend claims, navigate disputes during the project and, as a last resort, resolving disputes before an arbitrator or judge.  But, one of the things that has become quite apparent is that all stakeholders have recognized the very significant costs associated with engaging counsel for the long trip from assertion of a claim to judgment.  Rightfully so, stakeholders tend to see every dollar they spend on dispute related legal fees as a diminution in the project profit they have worked so hard to protect. As such, and in keeping with the seemingly growing atmosphere of teaming, I have seen parties adapt their contract clauses to fit this philosophy.  Specifically, contracts now often contain mandatory mediation, as a condition prior to arbitration or litigation.  Stakeholders are also asking for a contractually mandated meeting between principals to attempt to reach a good faith resolution of a dispute even before moving to mediation.  Of course, not all disputes result in settlement prior to litigation or arbitration, but taking into account the cost of legal fees and the potential for delays, many see the time and effort prior to counsel’s involvement as well spent.

Twenty-Five Years in the Construction Industry—We’ve Come a Long Way Baby, or Have We?

Pearl Jam CoverIn November 1989, I was a second year law student interviewing with firms in Connecticut and New York for a summer associate position.  During the Thanksgiving Holiday, I scheduled an interview with a small firm in New Haven.  The firm’s primary area of practice was construction litigation. I had no idea what “construction litigation” entailed, and I knew even less about the construction industry itself.  My grandfather was a mason, but he had died long before I was born.  Nonetheless, maybe it was a sign.  The interview went well and I was sufficiently intrigued to take the offer to serve as a summer associate in the Summer of 1990.

My Summer went well and I accepted a full time position with that firm in 1991—25 years ago.  The legal profession and the construction industry have changed quite a bit over the past 25 years.  Has it all been for the better?  My silver anniversary as a construction lawyer gave me the opportunity to look back on how the industry has evolved over the past several years.

A Pop Culture Frame of Reference

Big Dig Signs PhotoFirst, I tend to use pop culture and sports to provide context, so I’ll digress a bit to give a frame of reference for how the world looked in 1991.  The first Persian Gulf War began and ended.  The best-selling book that year was The Firm, by John Grisham; appropriate, I suppose, for a first year lawyer.  Silence of the Lambs was the major hit movie, and the top 3 albums were three of my all-time favorites—Nevermind by Nirvana, Ten from Pearl Jam and Achtung Baby from U2.  Nolan Ryan had just thrown his seventh career no hitter, and Michael Jordan won his first NBA Championship.  Law & Order was in its first season.  OJ Simpson was an NFL sideline reporter for NBC.  It would be another three years before the nation was captivated by the infamous white Bronco chase.


In the construction industry, the Big Dig in Boston began construction, and the Chunnel construction was well under way, ironically connecting England to the rest of Europe.  It would be completed three years later.  I think the Big Dig is still under construction.


Practicing Law in 1991

On my first day of work, I was handed a Dictaphone, a box of pens and notepads.  I would not receive my first computer desktop until a year or two later.  It would be a few more years before I was connected to the internet, right around the same time that I picked up my first cell phone.  It was physically attached to the dashboard of my car and it would not fit in my back pocket.  If a pleading had to be filed in court or sent to the opposing party on the same day, a retired gentlemen named Sam hopped in his wagon to make the hand delivery, unless we were cutting it close, in which case those of us who tended to drive a little faster would take care of the delivery ourselves.  Document inspections were performed at job trailers, rather than on SharePoint sites.

The Construction Industry Turns to Partnering and Project Teaming

In the construction industry, the traditional design-bid-build method was still being used on most projects.  The architect created the design, the owner sent the design out to bid, and the construction team built the project based on what everyone hoped was a complete design for a fixed price.  Nonetheless, the industry was starting to turn toward more collaboration among the parties, and the concept of “partnering,” a method of improving communications by setting common goals and monitoring achievement of those goals, was adopted by the Associated General Contractors and the Army Corps of Engineers in 1991.  The idea of “partnering” would continue to evolve over the next 25 years, as the construction team became involved earlier in the process, especially in the analysis of constructability and estimating, leading to what we now recognize today as “Integrated Project Delivery.”

Industry Forms in 1991

The industry was just weaning itself off of the 1976 AIA forms, and adopting the 1987 version.  Making edits to the AIA forms in 1991 was a much more time consuming task, so construction professionals and their attorneys held on to their 1976 templates as long as possible.  Major changes were to come to the AIA documents and all industry forms, in response to an evolution of the case law and in dispute resolution, but those changes were still a few years away.  The 1987 AIA forms required mandatory arbitration (no check boxes for alternative dispute forums).  They did not contemplate any waivers or limitations in damages.  The parties did not contractually waive subrogation rights on behalf of their insurers, thus providing insurers an opportunity to recover proceeds paid from those whom the carrier believed to be responsible.  The AIA Architect Agreements contained no reference to insurance, leaving owners without any ability to confirm what coverages their architects had in place.

Court Decisions Impact the Industry

During the 1990s, a series of court decisions and industry developments led to an evolution in design and construction contracts, and the introduction of legislation throughout the country aimed at increasing protections for the construction industry.  As contractors and subcontractors complained that they were not getting paid in a timely manner, legislators started listening, and states enacted prompt pay laws. The penalties imposed on parties for failing to pay pursuant to these prompt pay laws varies a great deal from state to state, and thus the question remains as to how successful these prompt pay statutes have been in reducing the time that contractors and subcontractors must await payment.  Retainage on construction projects was also addressed.  In the early 1990s, it was typical for owners to hold 10% retainage as security until the very end of the project.  States began enacting laws that would reduce retainage to as little as 5% or less, even on private projects.

Design and construction contracts are complex commercial transactions.  In the early 1990s, most in the construction industry probably did not appreciate the effort required to negotiate the agreements fairly, until certain court decisions changed that perspective.  Throughout the course of the 1990s, courts enforced clauses that limited or completely eliminated recovery for delay related damages.  Lien waivers executed prospectively (in many cases before work even began) were upheld.  Courts assessed massive consequential damages and lost profits against delinquent contractors, in some cases leading to bankruptcy or dissolution of the contractor.

The Industry’s Response

In response to these decisions, the industry modified its contract forms to limit certain exposures, and construction and design professionals more aggressively negotiated contractual provisions that otherwise may have gone unnoticed.  For instance, the AIA added a sweeping waiver of consequential damages clause to its forms, limiting the construction team’s exposure to owner claims for lost revenues and delay related damages.  State legislatures also responded by enacting statutes voiding certain contractual clauses , such as prospective waivers of lien on work for which a contractor or design professional had not been paid.

More recently, the industry has become creative in its efforts to resolve disputes more efficiently.  It is rare to find a contract that does not require non-binding mediation as a precondition to arbitration or litigation.  Many contracts also require principals to meet in an effort to resolve disputes before calling in third parties.  On particularly large projects, pre-appointed “dispute review boards” may decide disputes as they arise on the project, rather than allowing claims to fester for the duration of the project or longer.

How Far Have We Come?

So, are we better off now than we were in 1991?  Musically, I would argue not.  My downloads rarely include songs written after 1991.  But as I look back on my 25 (or more) years in the construction industry, it’s hard to argue against the positive developments overall.  Contracts tend to be more thoughtful and fair.  Massive defaults, while still a part of what remains a risky business, are less prevalent.  Parties are more engaged in seeking to prevent disputes before they arise; and when they do, finding solutions to disputes, rather than engaging in costly and contentious court or arbitration proceedings that can harm long term relationships.  My practice, which was at one time almost exclusively based in litigation, is now more devoted to selection of project delivery, procurement, contractual negotiations and risk management, to avoid such disputes.

Are contractual negotiations sometimes more tortured than they need to be?  Probably.  Has the industry become a bit too risk sensitive?  Arguably, parties should be more willing to accept responsibility for their actions.  But overall, I think we are in a better place.

Let’s see what the next 25 years bring!  Unless I win the lottery, I anticipate being around for most of it!

Pearl Jam cover photography by ijclark, some rights reserved. Big Dig photography by Nantaskart, some rights reserved. Chunnel photography by Sam Churchill, some rights reserved.

Contractual Waiver of Subrogation Applied to Owner’s Non-Work Property

After an insurer pays for a covered loss by an owner under a property policy the insurer generally has the right, whether under the common law, statute or the policy itself, to seek recovery of the payment from the responsible party.  This is known as the right of subrogation, or if based on the common-law right, equitable subrogation.  Under the doctrine of subrogation, the insurer “stands in the shoes” of the insured owner and exercises its right to subrogation by enforcing the owner’s rights against the responsible party.  However, the insurer is not only limited to enforcing whatever rights the owner may have, but is also subject to any applicable defenses against the owner.

Nevertheless, construction contracts, and in particular those that incorporate the AIA form A201 General Conditions, often include so-called “waiver of subrogation” provisions, which operate to bar claims by the owner or its insurer for property damage caused by the contractor (and often the subcontractors, suppliers, and architect), to the extent that the property damage was covered by the owner’s property insurance.  Such insurance is often a builder’s risk policy that the owner was contractually required to purchase, which typically covers damage to the contractor’s “work,” i.e., the actual construction performed by the contractor under the contract, and does not extend to cover other areas of the owner’s property, i.e., the “non-work” property.  Under these circumstances the contractor’s general liability policy is expected to provide coverage for accidental damage to the “non-work” property.  This allocation of liability is intended to place the responsibility to pay for accidental damage to the owner’s property during construction on the insurers, rather than the parties themselves, and avoid disputes and disruptions on the project over who is responsible.

Article 11 of the more recent versions of the AIA A201 General Conditions (1987, 1997 and 2007) allows the owner the option of relying on an existing property policy that covers the contractor’s “work,” rather than purchasing a builder’s risk policy.  Such property policies typically cover damage caused by the contractor to both “work” and “non-work” property, and are likely to apply when the project involves improvement, renovation or expansion of the owner’s existing property.  When the project involves new construction, the owner will more likely purchase a builder’s risk policy for the duration of the construction, and the entire project is usually considered to be the contractor’s “work.”

Considerable litigation has arisen as to whether the waiver of subrogation provision applies to bar an insurer’s subrogation claim against a contractor to the extent the insurer covered damage to the owner’s “non-work” property under the owner’s existing property policy.  The majority of jurisdictions have held that the waiver of subrogation provision in the construction contract applies to bar subrogation claims where the owner’s property policy covers the damage to “non-work” property.  This is the rule in Massachusetts.  See Haemonetics Corp. v. Brophy & Phillips Co., 23 Mass. App. Ct. 254, 501 N.E.2d 524 (1986).  However, the New York Court of Appeals sides with the minority view that a waiver of subrogation provision only applies to covered damage to the contractor’s work itself.  See S.S.D.W. Co. v. Brisk Water Proofing Co., 76 N.Y.2d 228, 229, 556 N.E.2d 1097, 557 N.Y.S.2d 290 (N.Y. 1990).

No appellate-level court has yet ruled on this issue in Connecticut.  However, a recent decision by the Connecticut Superior Court, Conn. Interlocal Risk Mgmt. Agency v. Silktown Roofing, Inc., 2016 Conn. Super. LEXIS 593 (March 22, 2016) (hereinafter, “CIRMA”), agrees with the majority rule.  In CIRMA, the plaintiff insurer had paid under the owner’s existing property policy to cover damage caused when fireproofing material became dislodged and fell during a high school roofing project.  The insurer then sought to recoup that payment by way of a subrogation action against the roofing contractor.  The contractor moved for summary judgment based on the waiver of subrogation provision in its contract with the owner.  The insurer argued that the waiver of subrogation provision applied only to the contractor’s “work,” which did not include the fireproofing material or interior areas where it fell.  The court disagreed, adopting the majority view that a waiver of subrogation provision of the type contained in the AIA A201 General Conditions applies to bar a subrogation claim where the owner’s property policy covered both “work” and “non-work” property.  Based on this reasoning, the court granted the contractor’s motion for summary judgment, and this result was not appealed.

Arbitrators Have Inherent Authority To Award Punitive Damages

In RV V Lockworks, LLC v. Five Yale & Towne, LLC, 2016 Conn. Super. LEXIS 563 (Conn. Super. Ct. Mar. 16, 2016) an arbitrator awarded punitive damages to the purchaser of a newly-constructed 300-unit apartment complex when it was discovered that the seller had intentionally concealed knowledge of the fact that all 300 balconies attached to the complex were constructed in violation of Connecticut’s state fire and building codes.

In this recent Superior Court decision, Judge Heller held that an arbitrator has the inherent authority to award punitive damages in the absence of an express provision in the arbitration submission to the contrary. The court confirmed an arbitration award where the arbitrator awarded punitive damages based on the defendant’s concealment of construction defects and code violations. This case should serve as a reminder that arbitration is not a safe haven from punitive damages.

In performing its due diligence in connection with the purchase of the complex, Lockworks identified multiple defects and problems with the construction. Five Yale, the seller, agreed to remediate these issues by the closing date, but failed to do so. The parties entered into a holdback escrow agreement to secure the cost of the remaining repairs as well as Five Yale’s representations and warranties under the purchase agreement. This purchase agreement provided for arbitration in the event of a dispute concerning the distribution of the escrowed funds.

Nearly six months later, Lockworks was notified by the Fire Marshal that all of the balconies attached to the complex failed to meet Connecticut state fire code and the state building code because they were constructed with Trex decking, a material not designed as non-combustible. Lockworks was advised that it would either need to install sprinkler coverage for the balconies or replace the decking with a code compliant material. Five Yale informed Lockworks that it was not previously aware of any of the noted code violations, and the purchase agreement contained a statement by Five Yale that it had no knowledge of code violations or defects.

Lockworks demanded arbitration alleging, among other things, that Five Yale had breached its representations and warranties with respect to code violations. The parties engaged in discovery pertaining to all claims and allegations, and Lockworks specifically requested documentation relating to the construction of the balconies and related inspections. After several days of arbitration, Lockworks received documents from a third party that demonstrated Five Yale knew for quite some time that the balconies may not be code compliant. The concealment of this information came out during the questioning of Five Yale’s chief estimator. Thereafter, Lockworks sought leave to amend its arbitration demand to assert a claim for punitive damages.

The arbitrator awarded Lockworks punitive damages in the amount of $210,923.41 after determining that Five Yale sold the complex with knowledge that all 300 balconies were in violation of  the state fire and building codes. The arbitrator found that Five Yale engaged in a conspiracy to conceal that was both egregious and recklessly indifferent to the rights of Lockworks and future tenants of the complex.

Lockworks sought to have the court confirm the arbitration award, and Five Yale objected and moved to partially vacate or modify the award. The Court confirmed the arbitrator’s decision to award punitive damages. The decision noted that arbitration is a creature of contract, and that the parties submission to the arbitrator defines and limits the issues to be decided.  Since the parties did not restrict the arbitration clause in the escrow agreement in any way, the court found that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority in awarding punitive damages. In so finding, the court stated that “in the absence of an express provision in the submission precluding an award of punitive damages, an arbitrator has the inherent authority to award punitive damages where the evidence supports such an award under applicable law.” Citing Med Val USA Health Programs, Inc. v. Member Works, Inc., 273 Conn. 634, 872 A.2d 423 (2005) (arbitration panel found defendant had engaged in unfair and deceptive acts in violation of CUTPA and awarded punitive damages under provision in CUTPA providing for such award).