Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

BMD Appellate Win Clarifies Waiver of Contractual Right to Arbitrate

Client Alert
April 12, 2021

Brennan, Manna & Diamond, LLC attorneys David M. Scott, Lucas K. Palmer, and Krista D. Warren prevailed before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit regarding if/when a party waives a contractual right to arbitrate. Borror Property Management, LLC v. Oro Karric North, LLC, No. 20-3146 (the “Decision”).

BMD clients Oro Karric North, LLC and its affiliates (collectively, “Oro”) entered into a property management agreement with Borror Property Management, LLC (“Borror”), in which Borror agreed to manage several apartment properties owned by Oro. The property management agreement stated that, “[i]f either party shall notify the other that any matter is to be determined by arbitration,” the parties would proceed to arbitration unless the matter could be resolved.

Oro came to believe that Borror breached the management agreement, so Oro sent various correspondence and demand letters to Borror prior to filing suit/arbitration (what Judge Readler, author of the Decision, describes as the “legal equivalent of a shot across the bow”). Oro went so far as to threaten litigation. Borror declined to compromise and instead filed suit against Oro in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Oro promptly moved to compel arbitration, but the District Court denied, holding that Oro’s pre-suit threat to litigate constituted a waiver of Oro’s contractual right to require arbitration. Oro appealed.

On appeal, Borror argued that the District Court was correct in deeming Oro’s pre-litigation letters to constitute a waiver of its contractual right to arbitrate. But the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals notes that strong public policy considerations favor arbitration, and “the exchange of letters between parties as a prelude to more formal dispute resolution is a time-honored tradition.” Further noting that Oro almost immediately moved to compel arbitration after the suit was filed, the Sixth Circuit holds that Borror was not prejudiced and sending a pre-suit “posturing” letter does not constitute a waiver.

Takeaway: This significant precedent has already been cited as authoritative in numerous decisions regarding if/when parties waive the right to arbitrate. Knowing how far one may push in negotiations can make the difference between resolution or impasse and help a party control its own destiny in a conflict scenario.

For any litigation or arbitration questions, please contact Litigation Member David Scott at dmscott@bmdllc.com.

David ScottChristopher CalpinBrennan Manna Diamond6th Circuit Court of AppealsLitigation
Client Alert

Wondering What’s Happening with Telehealth Legislation in Ohio?

February 10, 2022In December 2021, Governor DeWine signed into law HB 122, which will expand telehealth services in Ohio. The law takes effect in March 2022 and is in response to more patients relying on telehealth over the past two years during the height of the COVID pandemic, and more providers becoming comfortable with delivering services virtually. Telehealth is now a normalized healthcare delivery system nationwide. Beyond the safety benefits inherent in telehealth services, telehealth has made healthcare more accessible and more affordable for more people.Client Alert

Ohio Loan Programs to Boost Minority-Owned Businesses

January 26, 2022Ohio has created two new loan programs to enhance growth of minority and women owned businesses in Ohio. The Ohio 2022-2023 operating budget includes the Women’s Business Enterprise Loan Program and Ohio Micro-Loan Program.Client Alert

Supreme Court Upholds CMS Vaccination Mandate for Health Care Providers

January 18, 2022Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the COVID-19 vaccine-or-test mandate for employers with more than 100 employees (the OSHA ETS) and upheld the COVID-19 vaccination mandate for employees of health care providers who receive Medicaid or Medicare funding (the CMS rule).Client Alert

Federal and Ohio Laws on Surprise Billing

January 18, 2022Beginning in January 2022, Ohio providers and healthcare facilities will need to comply with both the federal No Surprises Act (“NSA”) and the state surprise billing law (HB 388), which are both designed to protect patients from unexpected medical bills.Client Alert

New Year, New Laws, Old Form Documents? Exhibit A: Changes in Florida’s Real Estate Contracts

January 18, 2022Settling into a New Year often brings renewed energy into setting and pushing new goals of building business relationships, increasing sales, and moving Letters of Intent and negotiations into final, signed agreements. It’s all too easy to grab a form document off the Internet (Google, anyone?), or to pull the last document in your files as a template for your next agreement. However, changes in the law can take effect at the beginning of the calendar year, as well as mid-year or fiscal new year, and sometimes on a random date in between. Your awareness – or lack of awareness – in changes in the law can mean the difference between keeping you and your business operating within the law or putting you at great financial and legal risk for not complying with the law. It can also result in financial and time savings or additional burden in time and costs.
Older posts
Newer posts