1 THE PRESERVATION AND PROSECUTION OF CONSTRUCTION CLAIMS Cincinnati, OH – May 30, 2008 William M....

1

THE PRESERVATION AND PROSECUTION OF

CONSTRUCTION CLAIMS

Cincinnati, OH – May 30, 2008

William M. Mattes, Esq.Dinsmore & Shohl LLP175 S. Third Street, Suite 1000Columbus, Ohio 43213(614) [email protected]

2

Alternative Dispute Resolution vs. Litigation of Construction Claims

William M. Mattes, Esq.Dinsmore & Shohl LLP175 S. Third Street, Suite 1000Columbus, Ohio 43213(614) [email protected]

3

I. Mediation

Neutral party hears both sides of story and tries to informally settle a case

Cost is low Willing parties usually good

results will occur

4

Pre-Suit Mediation

• Mandatory:– Make it part of contract– Tends to settle a large number of disputes– Keeps disputes business-like v. personal– Allows motion to dismiss or motion for stay

• Optional:– Easier to ignore– Can lead to increased litigation costs

• Personally:– I know of no good reason why pre-suit mediation

should not be mandatory in every construction contract

5

Hiring An “Appropriate” Mediator• Know Your Mediator

– Style– Temperament– Ability to relate to construction clients

• Know The Facts– Mediator has no time; you have plenty– Make sure “appropriate” facts are given to mediator

• Know The Law– Educate client, opposition and mediator– Make sure “appropriate” legal arguments are given to

mediator

• Know What Is Reasonable– “Appropriate” mediator will be reasonable

6

Keys to Successful Mediation

• Hire the best• Prepare a legal outline• Force client to draft key factual disputes/outline• Prepare as you would for court

– Do a “mock mediation”– Plan situational responses

• Think outside the box– High low agreements– Non-monetary items

• Ten hour days – be wary

7

1. Determine value of all claims2. Determine cost of litigation3. It is a numbers game4. Who holds authority to settle

- Counsel v. company representative

Strategy

8

How to “Handle” the Mediator

• Respectfully• Firm• Information to share v. private• Situations

– “Well then we’re done”– “That’s just unreasonable”– “Do you think the jury will buy that”– “Do you know how much this will cost to try”– “Meet them halfway”– “Let’s schedule another day”

9

– “Let the business people talk”– “Can I speak to your client…”

• Alone• Frankly• On item x

– “If you come to x and I get them to come to y…”

– “They are willing to stay all night”– “Ok – now get me your best offer”

10

When To Walk

If client distrusts mediator If no movement from other side If opening demand/response is too

far off When client is tired, upset, irrational When it becomes clear opposition

has no clue on facts, law or reality

11

Mediation

Conclusion:

• It is still the most cost-effective manner to realistically evaluate your case and the other side’s resolve/valuation

• You may also see your claims/defense through the eyes of the mediator and catch something you missed

• If you are drafting/reviewing contracts and need/want an ADR clause, use a pre-suit mediation requirement.

12

II. Arbitration

1. Mandatory v. optional

2. AAA v. Alternatives (alternatives are generally less expensive)

3. Location, location, location (always try to get a local panel)

13

ArbitrationNumber & Qualifications of Arbitrators

1 or 3 Arbitrators

Contractual provision Can be laypersons, engineers,

lawyers, judges, etc. Cost concern

Time concern

14

Arbitration: FINALITY & APPEAL• Gives you finality• May only overturn on Appeal in Ohio if you can prove:

– The award was procured by corruption, fraud or undue means

– Evidence of partiality or corruption on part of arbitrators, or any of them

– Misconduct of panel in refusing to postpone, refusing to hear evidence or any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party were prejudiced

– If arbitrators exceed their powers or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award on matters submitted was not made

Ohio Revised Code §2711.10

15

ArbitrationDISCOVERY

• In most cases it will be limited in amount

• In most cases it is a short schedule• No real “judge” to rule on disputes• Client forced into a lot of work in a

short amount of time

16

ArbitrationEXPERTS

• If an engineering case and engineers on panel, they tend to be their own “experts”

• Helpful to explain concepts• Still a battle of which experts win

the beauty contest• Make sure experts know or don’t

know the arbitration panel

17

ArbitrationMAKING A RECORD

• Despite limited ability to overcome adverse verdict, must make/keep record (corruption, fraud, impartial, misconduct, failure to accept testimony/evidence, failure to rule on motion submitted)

• Treat as trial transcript

• Do not allow panel to go “off the record”

18

Arbitration: COST• Can be, usually is, most costly form of ADR

• Pay for panel, room, record and filing fee

• Time constraints tend to increase cost

• Very expensive opening/filing fees based on value of claims

• Legal Fees can be assessed against you

19

Arbitration: CONCLUSION

• If finality and time concerns are key, I recommend using arbitration

•If cost is a concern this can be the most costly form of ADR

•On a personal note, I NEVER recommend arbitration

20

III. Litigating Construction ClaimsState v. Federal

If the option is available, most will choose federal

If in an outlying county imperative to have local counsel

21

Preparation1. You must prepare your witnesses for deposition as if

the entire case depends on testimony…it does!

2. Meet early and often with witnesses to prepare

3. To be prepared, have your witness understand, review and discuss the same things the lawyers will review:complaint answer & affirmative defensecontract key documentsexpert reports literatureinternet all documents sent/receivedtime-line all of your publicationsall of your company’s advertising/promotional material

22

4. Time you must be more prepared than opposing counseltake several days to review and reinforceno distractionsexpert v. fact witness (more time needed and expected)

5. Set date, time & place – when and where client is most comfortableclear your schedule days before and afterA.M. or P.M.early or late in week

6. Eat, Drink & Sleepall affect how client will testifydo not change any routinea well rested witness is a good witness

23

Deposition Day1. On the Record: remind client it is all recorded

2. Dress: business casual – make sure they are comfortable

3. Discussions off Record: nothing about the case

4. Routines: keep them

5. Breaks: early and oftenno more than 1 hour without a breakinsist on a lunch breakno more than 7 hours of testimony in a

day

6. Video Deposition: if you know video – practice

7. Objections: listen carefully

24

Deposition RulesRule #1 Be 100% honest

Rule #2 Yes, No or I do not know

Rule #3 Answer the question and only the question

Rule #4 Do not assume anything

Rule #5 Take your time

Rule #6 Wait until the question is complete

Rule #7 It is an interrogation, not a conversation

Rule #8 Ask to see the document – then READ it

Rule #9 Do not help opposing counsel

Rule #10 Never forget rule #1

25

After the Deposition

1. Get copies of all exhibits

2. Read, correct and sign deposition transcript

3. Keep copies

26

Expert In Construction CasesRule #1 Never Act. Either you are an expert or you are

wasting everyone’s time and money.Juries and judges know actors and fools

Rule #2 Limitations are Good – limit your area of expertise

The Ohio Administrative Code that regulates Professional Engineers requires that any expert opinion be founded:

-upon adequate knowledge of the facts-with technical competence in the subject matter-honest conviction of accuracy and propriety of the expert opinion

27

Rule #3 Know what you have done

Publications – remember public statements and certification are limitedby the Ohio Administrative Code in a manner similar to expert opinions. Prior testimony Prior reports Draft reports

Rule #4 Read all expert reports

Rule #5 Draft, edit and review your report as if the case

depended on it – it does.

Rule #6 Review everything opposing counsel reviews

Pleadings: complaint, answer, discovery responsesTime-line: know itKey documents: know themYour report: typically the attorney knows it better than youdo – do not let that happen

28

Rule #7 Admit the obvious – do not attempt to deny everything

Rule #8 Do Not Help Opposing Counsel

Rule #9 Meet with the real client and the attorney

Know the case better than they do

Seek input and help early and oftenDo not delegate if at all possible – do it

yourself

Rule #10 Know your own billing records

29

Expert TestimonyDaubert Supreme Court case on admissibility of

expert testimony The theory or technique must be reliable

(i.e tested), peer reviewable, error rate must be known and there must be some scientific basis (i.e. generally accepted methodology in the scientific community)

To help, your opinions must be admissible Must keep in mind when drafting your

expert report

30

Rules of EvidenceIn Ohio, to testify as an expert your testimony must:

• Relate to matters beyond knowledge of common man or dispel a common misconception; and

• You must possess knowledge, skill, training, education and experience that qualify you; and

• The theory must be based on scientific or technical information that is reliable, can be tested or verified, and if a test was performed – it must be proper with accurate results.

31

Expert Testimony Required:Expert testimony is necessary to establish professional negligence of design professionals - whether the designer exercises reasonable care in preparation of his designs depends upon the standard of care which licensed architects/engineers must follow. Simon v. Drake Constr. Co. (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 23, 621 N.E.2d 837; Vosgerichian v. Mancini Shah & Associates (1996), Nos. 68931, 68943, 1996 WL 86684 (Ohio App. 8 Dist., Cuyahoga County).

• Simon v. Drake: A worker was injured after falling from a fixed ladder inside a city parking garage. The worker sued the project architect alleging negligent design in the fixed ladder. However, the worker failed to present any expert testimony that the architect did not meet the standard of care required of a licensed professional architect in Ohio; thus his claim was dismissed.

32

Expert Testimony Required:

Capital Dredge & Dock Corp. v. City of Avon Lake (1978), No. 2627 & 2728, 1978 WL 215279 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist., Lorain County): Two consulting engineers to the City could have been primarily liable for the negligently-prepared plans and for negligently approving shop drawings for an outfall sewer project in Lake Erie, but the plaintiff did not retain an expert witness to testify as to the standard of care required of an engineer in similar circumstances. Thus, the claim failed.

33

EXPERT CASES IN OHIO

Miller v. Bike Athletic Co. (1998), 80 Ohio St.3d 607, 687 N.E.2d 735: This is a products liability case involving the design of a football helmet. The Court found the plaintiff's expert testimony – consulting engineer in the field of mechanical and biomedical engineering - was sufficiently reliable, as the opinion was based on tests that measured the helmet's compliance with nationwide standards governing the manufacture of athletic equipment, and evidence showed those standards existed to prevent head and neck injuries.

34


The Court used four factors to evaluate the reliability of scientific evidence: (1) whether the theory or technique has been tested; (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review; (3) whether there is a known or potential rate of error; and (4) whether the methodology has gained general acceptance. (using Daubert as a framework).

35


The Court expanded the scope of analysis, writing, "a trial court's role in determining whether an expert's testimony is admissible under 702(C) focuses on whether the opinion is based upon scientifically valid principles, not whether the expert's conclusions are correct or whether the testimony satisfies the proponent's burden of proof at trial."

36


Shreve v. United Electric & Construction Co., Inc. (2002), No. 01CA2626, 2002 WL 1677491 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist., Ross County): An employee sued his employer after the wall of a ditch collapsed on his shoulder. In finding for the employer, the court held that the employee's expert testimony regarding the soil's propensity to slide was not sufficiently reliable to be admissible. The expert stated his testimony was based on the assumption that the soil was clay-based; however, the expert never tested the soil in question, nor did he provide an explanation as to why the clay-based soil carried a propensity to slide.

37


In sum, the court found that because the expert did not adequately examine the soil or adequately explain and support the theory underlying his opinion, and he did not set forth an objectively verifiable theory to support that opinion, his testimony did not meet the Daubert reliability test.

38


Radford v. Monfort (2004), No. 10-04-08, 2004 WL 1961674 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist., Mercer County): A pedestrian sued a restaurant owner and the owner of a construction company, alleging he was injured when he slipped on a wet sidewalk outside the restaurant.

39


Before granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the court excluded the pedestrian's expert testimony. The pedestrian's expert was a civil engineer and licensed surveyor hired to determine whether the walkway outside the restaurant was safe.

40


He measured the coefficient of friction of the walkway in accordance with the nationally recognized standards; however, he then deviated from those procedures by factoring in the degree of slope on the surface.

41


Such a deviation was not set forth in the standards, nor was it supported by any other recognized industry standard. So the court found his testimony was inadmissible because it was not based on a reliable method or industry standard.

42

Reasonable Degree of Engineering Certainty

Lee v. Barber (2001) No. CA2000-02-014, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 2980 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist., Butler County): A property owner sued his neighbor for allegedly causing excess water and sewage runoff to enter his property, causing the foundation of his home to crack. His expert’s testimony was excluded because he could only testify “as to what ‘possibly’ or ‘may’ have caused the damage…” The appeals court noted that he did not “express that there is a greater than fifty percent likelihood that [the runoff] produced the occurrence at issue in the case.” The testimony, therefore, did not meet the reasonable degree of engineering certainty standard and was properly excluded.

43

EXPERT TESTIMONY- CONCLUSION-

1. Meet regularly with counsel2. Do not delegate3. Test accurately4. Use standards – no deviations5. Peer Review6. Edit carefully7. Meet with client before finalizing

report8. Understand your opponents position

44

Trial Testimony -- Key Tips

1. Be a Teacher - judges & juries want to be spoken to and taught

2. Never talk down to the judge, jury or opposing counsel

3. KISS – Keep it Simple Stupid4. Relate to judge/jury - use everyday

concepts5. Dress the Part

Expert: Suit & tie for men, business attire for womenFact: Business casual – fly the colors of the company

45

6. Honesty is still the best policy7. Do not change your demeanor on cross

and questions from the judge8. The eyes of the world are following you9. Confidence is key10.RESPECT

the process the parties the judge the jury opposing party/counsel

46

CARLA MARTIN

“Does anyone know who she is and why she is

famous?”

47

Witness Trial Preparation: Post Moussaoui Concerns

•Government attorney who prepped witnesses for death penalty phase of Al Qaeda suspect Zacharias Moussaoui

• Judge barred all witnesses she prepared

48

Moussaoui case

• FRE 615 – witness sequestration order issued• Purpose - Keeps witnesses from tailoring

testimony• Aids in detection of less than candid

testimony• Martin sent copies of office’s testimony to

witnesses• Told witnesses how to testify to shore up

weaknesses in case• Life in prison was sentence: much of the

evidence was kept out due to Carla Martin

49

“Witnesses should be coached, so long as they are not coached to play dirty…not all coaching is bad”. Superior Oil Co. v. Mississippi 280 U.S. 350 (1930). Justice Holmes

Witness preparation may be promoted as a truth-seeking device to help witnesses recall facts and details “previously overlooked”. Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, 190-191. (1986) (Justice Stevens)

50

Witness Preparation

• To represent to best of ability – must prepare

• Can’t offer false or perjurious statements• Must be ethical• Must be truthful• Must review exhibits• New York Times – would you say it for

quote on cover page• Meet separately to avoid impropriety

51

Judge v. Jury

• Most cases waiver is warranted• Stipulations – very helpful to Judge• Keep it short – attention span is low

52

Appeal

• Make a good record• Appeal can change case 180°• Keep as many critical issues

available for appeal• This is the key advantage over

mediation and arbitration

53

ConclusionMediation – least costly, non-adversarial usually best result for client

Arbitration – Costly, quick (usually) and final

Litigation - Costly, Judge for discovery issues, ability to appeal – long time to get there

William M. Mattes, Esq.Dinsmore & Shohl LLP

1 THE PRESERVATION AND PROSECUTION OF CONSTRUCTION CLAIMS Cincinnati, OH – May 30, 2008 William M....

Documents

Transcript of 1 THE PRESERVATION AND PROSECUTION OF CONSTRUCTION CLAIMS Cincinnati, OH – May 30, 2008 William M....