Court Rejects Toll Brothers' Argument That Arbitrator Ignored Law Firm's Alleged Overbilling
Toll Brothers argued that Horn Williamson, which represented homeowners in litigation over defective homes, employed unreasonable billing practices and that the arbitrator refused to hear evidence to that point by declining to admit invoices related to the firm's representation of other homeowners.
July 09, 2020 at 01:59 PM
3 minute read
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has upheld an arbitration award in favor of homeowners who sued Toll Brothers for defective construction.
A three-judge panel consisting of Judges John Bender, Anne Lazarus and Eugene Strassburger affirmed the $56,518 award, which includes attorney fees, in favor of plaintiffs Michael and Michelle D'Amelia.
Toll Brothers appealed the award, arguing that the arbitrator refused to hear argument that opposing counsel overbilled, refused limited discovery and that the trial court erred in affirming the award.
"Appellant avers that the trial court's holding constitutes an error of law, as it embodies a mischaracterization of appellant's argument," Bender said. "Appellant asserts that it never argued that the trial court should 'reconsider evidence and testimony that the arbitrator already considered[,]' but that the arbitrator 'never considered evidence that was crucial to the issue being arbitrated[.]' We deem appellant's claim to be meritless."
Toll Brothers argued that Horn Williamson, which represented the homeowners, employed unreasonable billing practices and that the arbitrator refused to hear evidence to that point by declining to admit invoices related to the firm's representation of other homeowners.
"We deem appellant's averment that [the arbitrator] failed to allow it to reference the invoices of the other homeowners to be a clear misrepresentation. Moreover, the record refutes appellant's allegation that the arbitrator failed to consider evidence of Horn Williamson's overbilling," Bender said. "The arbitrator was present for, and had the opportunity to consider, appellant's extensive cross-examination of Ms. Horn, in addition to its direct-examination of Sandra Hadley, appellant's expert witness in the field of forensic accounting and fraud examination. It was within the province of the arbitrator to accept or reject the records. Thus, we discern no abuse of discretion or error of law in the trial court's refusal to vacate the arbitration award on these grounds."
The court also found Toll Brothers' argument that the arbitrator improperly refused to allow limited discovery unpersuasive.
Additionally, the Superior Court rejected Toll Brothers' argument that the arbitrator should not have ruled on the issue of attorney fees, claiming it was not before him.
"Given that both parties requested attorneys' fees in connection with the arbitration proceeding, we discern that the arbitrator had the authority to award such fees," Bender said. "Thus, the trial court properly refused to vacate the award of attorneys' fees incurred in the arbitration."
Jennifer Horn of Horn Williamson represented the plaintiffs.
:In this case, Toll Brothers set unrealistic and unfair demands, demanding that Horn Williamson individually negotiate complex repair agreements for defective stucco homes with more than 60 different families within a very short time period. Horn Williamson attorneys were caused to work around the clock to satisfy Toll Brother's imposed deadlines," Horn said in an email. "Per Toll Brother's demands, if Horn Williamson deviated from its settlement instructions in any way, the settlement offers would be withdrawn. Horn Williamson attorneys acted tirelessly in the best interests of their clients under very difficult circumstances."
John Hare of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin represented Toll Brothers and declined to comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDisjunctive 'Severe or Pervasive' Standard Applies to Discrimination Claims Against University, Judge Rules
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250