We secured an arbitration award in excess of $5 million on behalf of a general contractor. The arbitration award was for a breach of contract/cumulative impact claim against the developer of a high end waterfront residential condominium project. The award exceeded the Guaranteed Maximum Price, as adjusted by change order.

John Bulman has been appointed sole arbitrator in an AAA large complex case dispute relating to the engineering, design, procurement and construction of a power plant in the Eastern U.S.

Represented US entity in distributorship dispute with UK company and its US sales and marketing subsidiary.  The matter was administered by ICDR and arbitrated in Rhode Island. Issues concerned reaching the correct respondent (which had approximately 13 related companies).  Received award for 100% of damages, plus attorney’s fees under Rhode Island statute, plus interest, and had the correct respondent liable for the award.  The matter is now in collection in the UK, which administers such awards under the New York Convention.

John Bulman has been appointed to chair an arbitration panel regarding a large complex dispute involving development of a new petrochemical plant.

Represented one of two partners in partnership dispute pertaining to operation of P&C personal lines insurance agency.  Ultimately we secured an agreement to arbitrate the dispute, addressing liability and then issues of valuation for a divorce between the partners.  Secured findings in favor of our client and very successful award of damages (high six figures) for his interest in the agency.

John Bulman is serving as an arbitrator in a matter relating to the construction of a natural gas-fueled combined-cycle generating facility in New England.

John Bulman has been appointed the sole arbitrator in a large complex construction dispute involving a multi-unit residential condominium development project located in suburban Boston.

Represented a construction manager seeking payment for labor and materials (plus profit) provided to a luxury condominium developer, prior to termination. Required to prove that the termination was for convenience and then to prove damages, which was challenging due to the manner in which financial records were maintained.  The developer offered nothing to settle until first day of hearings, when he offered slightly less than $1 million.  Ultimately an award was issued providing for payment to construction manager of slightly more than $5 million, representing almost a 100% recovery plus interest.

Represented the developer of limited service hotel in dispute with construction manager, leading to construction manager’s termination of the contract, arguing material breaches by the developer. The matter went through mediation and then arbitration with award being issued in favor of developer for cover. The proceeding also involved peripheral disputes with various trades who had liens on the project.

Represented “parts and smarts” subcontractor in dispute with 2d tier subcontractor in construction of major retail shopping mall.  The 2d tier subcontractor claimed $1 million plus in impact damages arising out of project acceleration and also claimed damages owing to alleged latent ambiguity in plans. Won an award finding no liability.

Served as chair of arbitration panel addressing claims by public owner against Design Builder of waste-to-energy generating equipment.  Following issuance of award against Design Builder, at the request of the Design Builder, successfully mediated a resolution in a follow-up dispute with its vendors/subcontractors and consultants.

John Bulman has been asked to serve as an arbitrator in a consumer dispute based on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act regarding alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and breach of contract.

John Bulman is currently sitting on a Dispute Review Board for a nuclear power plant construction project. Industry professionals are chosen to sit on Dispute Review Boards by the interested parties involved with a construction project for their experience, their independence, their commitment to the project, and their training as mediators and arbitrators. 

In a matter recognized by Rhode Island Lawyers Weekly as one of the most important opinions of 2012, we obtained a favorable order for a general contractor seeking to enforce an Ohio arbitration clause. The matter was of particular importance because it was the first time a court concluded that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted a Rhode Island statute that prohibits out-of-state arbitration in certain construction matters.

Obtained a favorable settlement for an owner of a spiritual retreat facility against its contractor and design professionals through a seven-party mediation following an incident that involved a burst sprinkler pipe, substantial property damage, and discovery of pervasive latent construction defects. Before the mediation, Pierce Atwood worked closely with the owner and the owner’s representatives to review the defective conditions and press for performance of the remedial work by the construction and design professionals.  Multiple demands on the contractor’s performance bond had to be made to ensure performance of the corrective and incomplete work.  Once the work was completed, Pierce Atwood represented the owner in the multi-party mediation that dealt with challenging issues involving construction defects with the fire protection system, reimbursement for additional costs due to the delayed project, complex insurance coverage issues (including with the owner’s property insurer), contract terms (waiver of subrogation, waiver of consequential damages), continuing warranty obligations, and the scope and finality of the release. At the end of the mediation process, the owner was paid for costs it incurred during the delayed project and it paid nothing against the claims submitted by its contractor and design professionals.

We represented a leading energy provider in mediation of approximately $150 million in related claims by two contractors arising out of a $1.55 billion transmission line construction project.  The claims arose from an allegation that environmental compliance on the project was overly restrictive, leading to both delay and significantly increased costs of compliance.  After two days of mediation per claim that included presentations by expert witnesses, we resolved the disputes for a fraction of the requested amount. 

John Bulman mediated a dispute over an interstate highway construction project between a state department of transportation (DOT) and a regional heavy contractor. 

John Bulman mediated a four-party property damage subrogation action currently pending in Massachusetts Federal Court.

John Bulman mediated a P3 (public-private partnership) dispute relating to a transportation infrastructure project in the Western U.S.

Served as chair of a panel addressing the termination of construction manager on a major biophysics research building.  Beyond overseeing highly contentious proceedings, issued lengthy decision construing scope of section 4-61 of the Connecticut General Statutes, the Connecticut dispute resolution law pertaining to this public construction contract.  Decision was subject to judicial review and was affirmed.

Represented one of three siblings in a dispute pertaining to care of mother with dementia and matters regarding handling of trust funds by one of the two brothers. We had the dispute stayed, pending mediation/arbitration, under which mediation occurred on the first day and when it failed, the matter immediately proceeded to arbitration before the same person who had been mediator. We received a total win for our client who was named solely responsible for the mother’s medical care, plus was given sole authority over the trusts. Brother was also ordered to reimburse the trusts for payments improperly made to himself and his wife while he managed finances.

Pierce Atwood delivered a successful outcome to the regional sewer authority Narragansett Bay Commission (NBC) at an American Arbitration Association (AAA) construction arbitration relating to a claim that a differing site condition impacted the installation of a concrete drop shaft.  The 30-foot diameter drop shaft was 220 feet deep and connected to the NBC’s one-mile long retention tunnel designed to capture sewerage that historically flowed into Narragansett Bay during rain storms.  During the contractor’s grouting operations at an adjacent structure, the contractor’s drop shaft experienced a large amount of water intrusion (up to 250 gallons per minute).  The contractor spent $1.1 million to pump out the water and seal the concrete walls of its drop shaft.  Pierce Atwood attorneys John Bulman and Katie Kohm handled the defense and the hearings before the panel of three AAA arbitrators.  The arbitrators gave credence to Pierce Atwood’s main arguments, found that the contractor failed to carry its burden of proof, and dismissed the contractor’s claim in its entirety.

In a large public works project, we represented a joint venture road/bridge builder in mediation with a state DOT (and Federal Highway) in which DOT threatened to impose millions of dollars of liquidated damages. The matter was successfully settled over several days of mediation.

In 2016, Pierce Atwood partner John Bulman successfully mediated a six-party case pending in federal court.  The matter involved a dispute between a publicly traded company and former board members and officers.  The allegations included claims of breach of fiduciary duty, gender discrimination, theft of intellectual property and whistleblower claims.  Three insurance policies were in play and after two days of mediation and some follow up, the matter settled.

We represented a minority shareholder in Major World, New York City’s largest used car dealership. Our client brought suit against Major World and its directors and officers for breach of fiduciary duty in bringing about a going-private buyout at an exceedingly low price. The case has an unusual cast of characters, including a movie producer and a federal prisoner. The defendants tried repeatedly to slow the process and move for dismissal on a variety of specious grounds. Pierce Atwood prevailed at every turn, with the defendants and all their outside directors bearing the burden of proving that the transaction was entirely fair to minority shareholders. The court also held that the controlling stockholder’s brother can even be found liable for aiding and abetting – a cause of action we did not even plead. The stage is now set for mediation, which will also include a large D&O insurance carrier.