NOW IS THE TIME TO REVISIT CONTRACT LANGUAGE IN LIGHT OF COVID-19 TO ADDRESS FUTURE CONTRACTS


Now is the time!  Today!  If you are currently in the process of negotiating or executing contracts, now is the time to ensure the contract protects your interest in light of this new world we enter into.   The impacts associated with COVID-19 may have been realized by some parties, but not others.  Regardless, the full extent of the COVID-19 impacts has likely been realized by no one — we are dealing with an unknown, prospective impact.

Will projects get suspended?  Will they stop and start back up due to disinfecting?  Will they slow down due to health concerns and preventative measures?  Will there be unanticipated material lead times?  Will current material lead times or material orders  be delayed?  Will material prices increase?  Will there be a labor shortage and/or inefficiencies with the labor force?  Will labor costs increase in order to address the preventative measures and anticipated inefficiencies?

These are some questions you may be asking, plus more.   You are asking these questions because of the unknown factor associated with COVID-19 and any future health crisis.  This is the reason now is the time — the time to ensure your contract best captures the risk of the unknown.

Here are considerations:

1.  Force majeure wording. –   This needs to be beefed up and tweaked to address COVID-19 and, potentially, other pandemics / health crisis.   You need to have an understanding who is bearing the cost risk for a project being shut down (by the government or otherwise), suspended, or slowed-down due to this issue.    Leaving it alone is a mistake.  All contracts until this pandemic hit left it alone meaning no contract truly addressed the global pandemic we are all facing.

2.  Additional safety and preventative health measures. – This needs to be factored in as the additional measures will add a cost to the project.  The measures may also add a cost in that they will add certain inefficiencies into the project that need to be factored into the schedule and general conditions.

3.  Material price escalations.- Could the cost of materials increase due to supply chain issues?  It is certainly a possibility and should be considered.  Further, it is likely that to avoid this issue, a party wants to accelerate the ordering of materials at today’s price, and there may be additional storage costs associated with doing this.   Conversely, what if the price of materials skyrocket post-contract?  This issue could break a party’s performance, profitability, and financial wherewithal to perform.  A party may want to address protection from any uncertainty with material price escalations.

4.  Material lead times and material delays.- If there are delays tied to COVID-19, how this being allocated?  There could be a realistic delay in material deliveries that impacts the project’s schedule.  The delay is not the ordering party’s fault but the result of impacts associated with the pandemic.  Based on this concern, this may result in the discussion of material accelerations and the additional storage costs associated with doing this (also discussed above).

5.  No-damage-for-delay.-  A no-damage-for-delay provision is common.  However, a party may want to deliberately carve-out from this issue delays associated with or tied to COVID-19 or any pandemic / health crisis.  The carve-out language should be broad and include language “arising out of or relating to” COVID-19 or any pandemic / health crisis based on the uncertainty as to how impacts may be realized.

6.  Contingencies.- Certain contracts, such as GMP contracts, contain a contingency.  Parties may want to add a contingency in the contract for COVID-19 and pandemics / health crisis.  A certain sum is built into the contract sum to address the unknown costs that could be incurred.

7.  Dispute resolution.- Knowing that the onslaught of COVID-19 cases will start affecting the judicial system, parties may want to revisit their dispute resolution provisions to see how disputes can be more efficiently resolved.  Parties may consider turning towards more specific arbitration provisions that modify standard contractual language.  Since arbitration is a creature of contract, parties can essentially start negotiating the rules of arbitration within the parameters of the contract.  Parties may demand pre-suit mediation provisions, executive settlement meetings, or partnering agreements as vehicles to efficiently resolve disputes and avoid delays or inefficiencies with the judicial system.

These are some talking points.  There will be others based on the scope.  I remain available to assist any party that wants to revisit their standard form contracts or needs help in drafting or negotiating contracts.   A party should not rely on their same-ole contract forms.  Also, a party should not rely on the same-ole negotiation as COVID-19 brought new issues to the table and highlighted the significance of other issues and contractual provisions.

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

THE ARBITRATION PROVISION SHOULD DICTATE WHETHER JUDGE OR ARBITRATOR DECIDES ARBITRABILITY OF ISSUE

An arbitration provision should specifically dictate whether you want a judge or arbitrator to decide the arbitrability of a claim or issue.  The reality is, if you prefer your disputes to be resolved by arbitration, you should dictate that the arbitrator decides the arbitrability of issues or claims.  This way the party opposing arbitration cannot try to circumvent this by having the judge decide, potentially altering the forum for disputes, and otherwise slowing down the dispute resolution process.   The recent case discussed below highlights why specifying who decides the arbitrability of a claim or issue is worthy.

In Doe v. Natt, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D712a (Fla. 2d DCA 2020), involving an arbitration agreement in an Airbnb clickwrap agreement, the matter at-issue was who decides whether a dispute is arbitrable, i.e., subject to the arbitration provision, a judge or the arbitrator.  (A clickwrap agreement is an online agreement we enter into with a company that requires us to click “I agree” boxes to proceed.  We have all entered into one.)    The arbitration provision required the parties to proceed to arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”):

Arbitration Rules and Governing Law. The arbitration will be administered by the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules and the Supplementary Procedures for Consumer Related Disputes (the “AAA Rules”) then in effect, except as modified by this Dispute Resolution section. (The AAA Rules are available at www.adr.org/arb_med or by calling the AAA at 1-800-778-7879.) The Federal Arbitration Act will govern the interpretation and enforcement of this section.

AAA’s rules (whether dealing with a commercial or construction dispute) provide, “The arbitrator shall have the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, scope or validity of the arbitration agreement or the arbitrability of any claim or counterclaim.”  In other words, the arbitrator determines the arbitrability of a claim.

However, the Second District Court of Appeal focused on the fact that the arbitration provision at-issue did not specifically state the arbitrator is to decide issues of arbitrability and AAA’s rules were not attached to the clickwrap agreement. And, while other appellate courts that have found that an arbitrator determines arbitrability when AAA’s rules have been incorporated by reference into an arbitration provision, the Second District disagreed with those holdings finding that generally incorporating AAA’s rules was too general and ambiguous as to who decides the arbitrability of a dispute:

We hold that the clickwrap agreement’s arbitration provision and the AAA rule it references that addresses an arbitrator’s authority to decide arbitrability did not, in themselves, arise to “clear and unmistakable” evidence that the parties intended to remove the court’s presumed authority to decide such questions. The evidence on what these parties may have agreed to about the “who decides” arbitrability question was ambiguous; therefore, the court retained its presumed authority to decide the arbitrability dispute.

Doe, supra.

To avoid this generality or ambiguity, and arbitration provision should unmistakably dictate whether a judge or arbitrator decides the arbitrability of a claim or issue.

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

YOU CANNOT ARBITRATE CLAIMS NOT COVERED BY THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT

Regardless of the type of contract you are dealing with, “[a]rbitration provisions are contractual in nature, and therefore, construction of such provisions and the contracts in which they appear is a matter of contract interpretation.”  Wiener v. Taylor Morrison Services, Inc., 44 Fla. L. Weekly D3012f (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).   This means if you want to preserve your right to arbitrate claims you want to make sure your contract unambiguously expresses this right.  Taking this one step further, if you want to make sure an arbitrator, and not the court, determines whether the claim is arbitrable if a dispute arises, you want to make sure that right is expressly contained in the arbitration provision.

For example, in Wiener, a homeowner sued a home-builder for violation of the building code – a fairly common claim in a construction defect action.  The homeowner’s claim dealt with a violation of building code  as to exterior stucco deficiencies.   The home-builder moved to compel the lawsuit to arbitration based on a structural warranty it provided to the homeowner that contained an arbitration provision.   The structural warranty, however, was limited and did not apply to non-load-bearing elements which, per the warranty, were not deemed to have the potential for a major structural defect (e.g., a structural defect to load-bearing elements that would cause the home to be unsafe or inhabitable).  The trial court compelled the dispute to arbitration pursuant to the arbitration provision in the structural warranty.

But, the First District Court of Appeal held the trial court was wrong to compel the dispute to arbitration.  Why?  The homeowner did not sue the home-builder for a breach of the structural warranty.  Even if the homeowner was trying to navigate around the structural warranty, the warranty was limited in nature and would NOT apply to a claim dealing with defective stucco, which is not a load-bearing issue, to say the least.  See Wiener, supra (“[C]onsidering the plain meaning of the structural warranty agreement, the [plaintiff’s] complaint does not raise claims subject to arbitration under that agreement.”).  The home-builder could not have its cake and eat it too — it could not exclude claims from the warranty and then try to arbitrate those very excluded claims per an arbitration provision in the warranty.

Here, the issue of whether the claim was arbitrable (subject to arbitration), was decided by the court, as it typically is.  The arbitrability of a claim is typically a question for the court.  Wiener, supra. This does not mean that it needs to be that way.   Parties can clearly include in their arbitration provision that the determination of the arbitrability of a claim is a determination for an arbitrator, and not the court.

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

GOOD-TO-KNOW POINTS REGARDING (I) MILLER ACT PAYMENT BONDS AND (II) PAYMENT BOND SURETY COMPELLING ARBITRATION

Every now and then I come across an opinion that addresses good-to-know legal issues as a corollary of strategic litigation decisions that are questionable and/or creative.  An opinion out of the United States District Court of New Mexico, Rock Roofing, LLC v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, 2019 WL 4418918 (D. New Mexico 2019), is such an opinion.

In Rock Roofing, an owner hired a contractor to construct apartments. The contractor furnished a payment bond.  The contractor, in the performance of its work, hired a roofing subcontractor.  A dispute arose under the subcontract and the roofer recorded a construction lien against the project. The contractor, per New Mexico law, obtained a bond to release the roofer’s construction lien from the project (real property).  The roofer then filed a lawsuit in federal court against the payment bond surety claiming it is entitled to: (1)  collect on the contractor’s Miller Act payment bond (?!?) and (2) foreclose its construction lien against the lien release bond furnished per New Mexico law.

Count I – Miller Act Payment Bond

Claiming the payment bond issued by the contractor is a Miller Act payment bond is a head scratcher. This claim was dismissed with prejudice upon the surety’s motion to dismiss. This was an easy call.

A Miller Act payment bond is a bond a prime contractor gives to the United States (US) for a public project. Here, the contractor entered into a contract with a private developer for a private apartment project. There was nothing to suggest that the private developer was, in fact, the US government or an agent of the US government.  There was also nothing to suggest that the apartment project was, in fact, a public project.  The roofer alleged that it believed the US Department of Housing and Urban Development provided funding for the project. The Court found this allegation as a big so-what: “The Court finds this allegation insufficient to demonstrate either the payment bond was furnished to the [US] Government as required by the [Miller Act], or that the apartment complex was a public building or public work as required by the [Miller Act].” Rock Roofing, LLC, 2019 WL at *3.

Count II – Foreclosure of Construction Lien Against Lien Release Bond

The surety moved to compel the roofer’s foreclosure claim against the lien release bond to arbitration pursuant to the contractor’s subcontract with the roofer.  The roofer countered that arbitration was inappropriate since the surety was not a party to the subcontract.

The Court (relying on a Florida district court opinion I was intimately involved with) found that the doctrine of equitable estoppel applied to compel the roofer to arbitration because the roofer’s claim for payment was based on its subcontract that contains the arbitration provision. “Because [the roofer’s] claim on the payment bond depends on its subcontract with [the contractor], the arbitration clause in the subcontract must precede [the roofer’s] right to bring suit as provided by the payment bond.Rock Roofing LLC at *7.

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

QUICK NOTE: YES, YOU CAN WAIVE THE RIGHT TO ARBITRATE

A party can waive the contractual right to arbitrate.  Waiver is the “voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right or conduct which implies the voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right.”  Ship IV Harbour Island, LLC v. Boylan, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D831a (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (citation and internal quotation omitted).  Thus, a party can waive its right to arbitrate a dispute by engaging in conduct inconsistent with the right to arbitrate.  One way a party can act inconsistently with the right to compel a dispute to arbitration is by engaging in discovery in litigation, particularly discovery as to the merits of the case.  See Ship IV Harbour Island, supra (after court ordered limited discovery regarding arbitration, party thereafter waived right to arbitration by engaging in discovery as to the merits of the dispute).    For this reason, if your desire is to preserve the integrity of a contractual arbitration provision, do not do anything inconsistent with this right such that you give the other party the argument that you waived the contractual right to arbitration.  

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

ARBITRATION PROVISIONS ARE CHALLENGING TO CIRCUMVENT

Arbitration provisions are enforceable and they are becoming more challenging to circumvent, especially if one of the parties to the arbitration agreement wants to arbitrate a dispute versus litigate a dispute.  Remember this when agreeing to an arbitration provision as the forum for dispute resolution in your contract.  There is not a one-size-fits-all model when it comes to arbitration provisions and how they are drafted.  But, there is a very strong public policy in favor of honoring a contractual arbitration provision because this is what the parties agreed to as the forum to resolve their disputes.  

 

By way of example, in Austin Commercial, L.P. v. L.M.C.C. Specialty Contractors, Inc., 44 Fla.L.Weekly D925a (Fla. 2d DCA 2019), a subcontractor and prime contactor entered into a consultant agreement that contained the following arbitration provision:

 

Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof shall be subject to the dispute resolution procedures, if any, set out in the Prime Contract between [Prime Contractor] and the [Owner]. Should the Prime Contract contain no specific requirement for the resolution of disputes or should the [Owner] not be involved in the dispute, any such controversy or claim shall be resolved by arbitration pursuant to the Construction Industry Rules of the American Arbitration Association then prevailing, and judgment upon the award by the Arbitrator(s) shall be entered in any Court having jurisdiction thereof.

 

The prime contract between the owner and prime contractor did not require arbitration.

 

The prime contractor initially hired the subcontractor during the design phase of the project as a consultant.  The consultant agreement contained the aforementioned arbitration provision. Then, during the construction phase, the prime contractor and subcontractor entered into a work order that incorporated the terms of the consultant agreement, meaning the arbitration provision was incorporated into the work order.  

 

A payment dispute arose during the construction phase and the subcontractor sued the prime contractor.  The prime contractor moved to compel the dispute to arbitration per the terms of the arbitration provision in the consultant agreement.  The trial court denied the prime contractor’s motion to compel.   This was reversed on appeal – and it was probably an easy reversal for three main reasons:

 

One:  Florida has a strong public policy in favor of enforcing arbitration provisions, as mentioned above.  Remember this. 

 

Two:  the work order between the prime contractor and subcontractor for the construction phase incorporated the terms of the consultant agreement that contained an arbitration provision.  Thus, the consultant agreement with the arbitration provision had to be interpreted together with the work order.  Remember that a document or contract can incorporate another document or contract. 

 

Three:  the dispute was between the subcontractor and prime contractor.   The owner was NOT “involved” in the dispute because it was not a party to the lawsuit and the payment dispute the subcontractor initiated against the prime contractor did not involve the owner considering the owner did not need to participate in the dispute.   “[O]ne would not ordinarily understand an entity to be ‘involved’ in a dispute where that entity is neither drawn into the dispute nor affected by the dispute. Only an impermissible, strained textual interpretation of ‘involved in the dispute’ would yield a conclusion that HCAA [Owner] would be affected by a financial dispute between Austin [Prime Contractor] and Mims [Subcontractor].”  Austin Commercial, supra.   Remember this that the word “involve,” as this word is used in the arbitration provision, is not going to be read so broadly to render inconsequential the prime contractor’s right to arbitrate disputes with its subcontractor. 

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

 

SUPREME COURT HOLDS ARBITRATOR CAN FULLY DECIDE THRESHOLD ARBITRABILITY ISSUE

shutterstock_1018025605The United States Supreme Court recently decided parties to a contract can agree, under the Federal Arbitration Act, an arbitrator, rather than a court, can fully resolve the initial arbitrability question.  Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer and White Sales, Inc., 2019 WL 122164 (2019).  The arbitrability question is whether the dispute itself is subject to arbitration under an arbitration provision.  Parties that do not want to arbitrate try to circumvent this process by filing a lawsuit and asking the court to determine the threshold arbitrability question.  

 

In Henry Schein, Inc., the contract at-issue provided:

 

This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of North Carolina.  Any dispute arising under or related to this Agreement (except for actions seeking injunctive relief and disputes related to trademarks, trade secrets, or other intellectual property) shall be resolved by binding arbitration in accordance with the arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association.  The place of arbitration shall be in Charlotte, North Carolina.

 

The plaintiff in this case asserted a claim for injunctive relief (among other claims) and argued that, therefore, the dispute is not subject to arbitration based on the exception in the provision.  The initial, threshold issue became whether the dispute was subject to arbitration and, importantly, who decides this issue. The Court further looked at whether a trial court can resolve this issue under the “wholly groundless” exception, i.e.,the court can decide the issue if the argument for arbitration is wholly groundless.  

 

The Supreme Court held that, “[w]hen the parties’ contract delegates the arbitrability question to an arbitrator, a court may not override the contract.  In those circumstances, a court possesses no power to decide the arbitrability issue.  That is true even if the court thinks that the argument that the arbitration agreement applies to a particular dispute is wholly groundless.” Henry Schein, Inc, supra, at *4.  Through this ruling, the Court rejected the wholly groundless exception that would allow a trial court to rule on an threshold arbitrability question if the argument for arbitration is wholly groundless. 

 

The Court did not rule as to whether the arbitration provision at-issue delegated the arbitrability question to the arbitrator.   However, the American Arbitration Association’s rules provide that arbitrators have the power to resolve such threshold arbitrability questions so there is an argument that the provision through reference to the American Arbitration Association gave this authority to the arbitrator.  But, the best thing to do, as always, is to be clear.   Include language in the arbitration provision that specifically states that an arbitrator is authorized to decide the arbitrability of issues, particularly if it is your arbitration provision and you want disputes resolved by arbitration.  Conversely, if you want the initial, threshold issue of arbitrability to be decided by a court, make sure to specify that in the provision.

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

 

 

 

 

DRAFTING A CONTRACTUAL ARBITRATION PROVISION

shutterstock_505551922A recent Florida case discussing a contractual arbitration provision in a homebuilder’s contract discussed the difference between a narrow arbitration provision and a broad arbitration provision.  See Vancore Construction, Inc. v. Osborn, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D2769b (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).   Understanding the distinction between the two types of arbitration provisions is important, particularly if you are drafting and/or negotiating a contractual arbitration provision.

 

A narrow contractual arbitration provision includes the verbiage “arises out of”  the contract such that disputes arising out of the contract are subject to arbitration.  Arbitration is required for those claims the have a direct relationship with the contract.

 

A broad contractual arbitration provision includes the verbiage “arises out of or relating to” the contract such that disputes arising out of or relating to the contract are subject to arbitration.  Arbitration is required for those claims that have a significant relationship to the contract. A significant relationship exists if there is a nexus between the claim and the contract meaning the “claim presents circumstances in which the resolution of disputed issues requires either reference to, or construction of, a portion of the contract.”  See Vancore Construction, Inc., supra, (citation omitted). 

 

When drafting or negotiating an arbitration provision, make sure you understand those claims that will be subject to arbitration and those potential claims that will not.    Typically, if you want a arbitration provision in your contract, you more than likely prefer a broad arbitration provision such that claims arising out of or relating to the contract will be subject to arbitration.

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

OWNERS BOUND BY ARBITRATION CLAUSE ON ROOFING SHINGLES PACKAGING

shutterstock_1084249700In today’s age, you are probably familiar with terms such as a shrinkwrap contract (terms and conditions), which is a boilerplate contract included with a retained product, or a clickwrap contract (terms and conditions), which is generally a boilerplate contract that is digitally accepted when purchasing software or an electronic product. These are are boilerplate terms from manufacturers or vendors of products or software.  Arbitration provisions in these types of agreements have generally found to be enforceable.

 

In the recent ruling by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Dye v. Tamko Building Products, Inc., 2018 WL 5729085 (11th Cir. 2018), the court held that an arbitration provision included in a product-purchase limited warranty agreement on the package of every roofing shingles binds a homeowner to arbitrating disputes over the opened and retained product with the manufacturer, irrespective of whether the shingles were purchased by an owner’s roofer.   The shingles do not have to be purchased and opened by the owner for the arbitration provision to apply. If the roofer uses or retained the shingles for purposes of the owner’s home, such knowledge of the product-purchase limited warranty agreement on the packaging of the shingles is imputed to the owner (end-user of the shingles).  In this manner, the court summarized:

 

 

At the end of the day, the point is simply this: modern consumers are on notice that products come with warranties and other terms and conditions of purchase.  And they are free to research (or not), request (or not), and read (or not) those terms before unwrapping their purchases.  As to the case before us, Florida law makes clear that providing conspicuously printed product packaging is an OK way to convey purchase terms.  Florida consumers who purchase, open, and retain a product are thus bound in accordance with warranty terms conspicuously printed on that product’s packaging, whether they actually take the time to read them or not. 

***

To summarize, then, acceptance of Tamko’s [roofing manufacturer] purchase terms—arbitration clause and all—was incidental to, and reasonably necessary to accomplish the homeowner’s express grant of agency authority to their roofers to purchase and install shingles, and in any event, the roofers’ notice of the terms printed on the shingle wrappers in properly imputed to the homeowners. 

Dye, supra. 

 

Arbitration clauses are favored.  So, the next time you purchase or download a product and receive a boilerplate contract with terms and conditions, such as a limited warranty document that contains an arbitration provision, remember, the arbitration provision will likely be deemed enforceable.

 

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

QUICK NOTE: UNENFORCEABLE LANGUAGE IN ARBITRATION PROVISION

imagesAlthough arbitration is a dispute resolution provision provided for in a contract, the scope of judicial review of an arbitrator’s award is still governed by law.  There are limited circumstances in which an arbitrator’s award can be challenged under the law.  One of those circumstances is not because a party believes that an arbitrator applied the incorrect law.  

 

In a recent construction case, discussed in more detail here, an arbitration provision provided that a party can essentially appeal/challenge an arbitrator’s award to the circuit court if the arbitrator applied the incorrect law.  The appellate court held this language was unenforceable because it attempted to expand the legal scope of judicial review of an arbitration award.  The issue, here, became more than just the unenforceable language but whether the entire arbitration clause should be deemed unenforceable.  In other words, the issue became whether the unenforceable language that expanded the scope of judicial review of an arbitration award could be severed from the provision such that the parties would still be required to arbitrate (hence, the importance of a severability provision in a contract) OR the entire arbitration provision should be deemed unenforceable.  This is a HUGE difference because in one instance the parties still can arbitrate absent the expanded scope of judicial review and in the other instance the arbitration clause is unenforceable in entirety and the parties would be required to litigate. 

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.