THE PRESERVATION AND
PROSECUTION OF
CONSTRUCTION CLAIMS
Cincinnati, OH – May 30, 2008
William M. Mattes, Esq.
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
175 S. Third Street, Suite 1000
Columbus, Ohio 43213
(614) 628-6880
bill.mattes@dinslaw.com
1
Alternative Dispute Resolution vs.
Litigation of Construction Claims
William M. Mattes, Esq.
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
175 S. Third Street, Suite 1000
Columbus, Ohio 43213
(614) 628-6880
bill.mattes@dinslaw.com
2
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
3
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
4
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
5
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
6
Strategy
1.
2.
3.
4.
Determine value of all claims
Determine cost of litigation
It is a numbers game
Who holds authority to settle
-
Counsel v. company representative
7
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”
8
– “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”
9
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
10
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.
11
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)
12
Arbitration
Number & Qualifications of Arbitrators
 1 or 3 Arbitrators
 Contractual provision
 Can be laypersons, engineers, lawyers,
judges, etc.
 Cost concern
 Time concern
13
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
14
Arbitration
DISCOVERY
•
•
•
•
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
15
Arbitration
EXPERTS
• 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
16
Arbitration
MAKING 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”
17
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
18
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
19
III. Litigating Construction Claims
State v. Federal
If the option is available, most will choose federal
If in an outlying county imperative to have local counsel
20
Preparation
1.
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 defense
contract
key documents
expert reports
literature
internet
all documents sent/received
time-line
all of your publications
all of your company’s advertising/promotional material
21
4. Time
you must be more prepared than opposing counsel
take several days to review and reinforce
no distractions
expert v. fact witness (more time needed and expected)
5. Set date, time & place – when and where
client is most comfortable
clear your schedule days before and after
A.M. or P.M.
early or late in week
6. Eat, Drink & Sleep
all affect how client will testify
do not change any routine
a well rested witness is a good witness
22
Deposition Day
1. 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 often
no more than 1 hour without a break
insist on a lunch break
no more than 7 hours of testimony in a day
6. Video Deposition: if you know video – practice
7. Objections: listen carefully
23
Deposition Rules
Rule
Rule
Rule
Rule
Rule
Rule
Rule
Rule
Rule
Rule
#1
Be 100% honest
#2
Yes, No or I do not know
#3
Answer the question and only the question
#4
Do not assume anything
#5
Take your time
#6
Wait until the question is complete
#7
It is an interrogation, not a conversation
#8
Ask to see the document – then READ it
#9
Do not help opposing counsel
#10 Never forget rule #1
24
After the Deposition
1. Get copies of all exhibits
2. Read, correct and sign deposition
transcript
3. Keep copies
25
Expert In Construction Cases
Rule #1
Never Act. Either you are an expert or you are
Rule #2
Limitations are Good – limit your area of expertise
wasting everyone’s time and money.
Juries and judges know actors and fools
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
26
Rule #3
Know what you have done
Publications – remember public statements and certification are limited
by the Ohio Administrative Code in a manner similar to expert opinions.
Prior testimony
Prior reports
Draft reports
Rule #4
Rule #5
Rule #6
Read all expert reports
Draft, edit and review your report as if the case
depended on it – it does.
Review everything opposing counsel reviews
Pleadings: complaint, answer, discovery responses
Time-line: know it
Key documents: know them
Your report: typically the attorney knows it better than you
do – do not let that happen
27
Rule #7
Admit the obvious – do not attempt to deny
Rule #8
Do Not Help Opposing Counsel
Rule #9
Meet with the real client and the attorney
everything
Know the case better than they do
Seek input and help early and often
Do not delegate if at all possible – do it yourself
Rule #10
Know your own billing records
28
Expert Testimony
Daubert
 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
29
Rules of Evidence
In 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.
30
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.
31
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.
32
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.
33
EXPERT CASES IN OHIO
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).
34
EXPERT CASES IN OHIO
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."
35
EXPERT CASES IN OHIO
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.
36
EXPERT CASES IN OHIO
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.
37
EXPERT CASES IN OHIO
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.
38
EXPERT CASES IN OHIO
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.
39
EXPERT CASES IN OHIO
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.
40
EXPERT CASES IN OHIO
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.
41
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.
42
EXPERT TESTIMONY
- CONCLUSION-
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Meet regularly with counsel
Do not delegate
Test accurately
Use standards – no deviations
Peer Review
Edit carefully
Meet with client before finalizing report
Understand your opponents position
43
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 Stupid
4. Relate to judge/jury - use everyday concepts
5. Dress the Part
Expert: Suit & tie for men, business attire for women
Fact: Business casual – fly the colors of the company
44
6. Honesty is still the best policy
7. Do not change your demeanor on cross and
questions from the judge
8. The eyes of the world are following you
9. Confidence is key
10. RESPECT
the process
 the parties
 the judge
 the jury
 opposing party/counsel
45
CARLA MARTIN
“Does anyone know who she
is and why she is famous?”
46
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
47
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
48
“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)
49
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
50
Judge v. Jury
• Most cases waiver is warranted
• Stipulations – very helpful to Judge
• Keep it short – attention span is low
51
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
52
Conclusion
Mediation – 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
53