Dobson Brothers Construction Co., Inc.

This is not the first time that Dobson Brothers has had problems, screw ups and tried to sue their own insurance company to cover Dobson Brothers mistakes

The following suit was lost by Dobson Brothers in that Dobson Brothers lost the claim and was out at least $75,000.00 in legal costs in trying to to sue their insurance company.

DOBSON BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION nedce 4:2002cv03082 03/14/2002 110 06/06/2003
Dobson Brothers Construction v. Assurance Company of America
This is not the first time that Dobson Brothers has had problems, screw ups and tried to sue their own insurance company to cover Dobson Brothers mistakes

The following suit was lost by Dobson Brothers in that Dobson Brothers lost the claim and was out at least $75,000.00 in legal costs in trying to to sue their insurance company.

DOBSON BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION nedce 4:2002cv03082 03/14/2002 110 06/06/2003
Dobson Brothers Construction v. Assurance Company of America

ABSOLUTE PUBLIC AUCTION
Major Reorganization Sale for
Dobson Brothers Construction !!
Thursday, November 29th • 2007
Lincoln, Nebraska
Contact Greg Forke (402) 434-1925 for more info.
Preliminary Listing for this
Absolute Public Auction

So is Dobson Brothers still in business?

Before a Federal Magistrate Judge, subcontractor Ratliff, Inc. (defendant and counter claimant) moved to compel arbitration under a provision of the prime contract that was incorporated by reference into the subcontract between plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiff, Dobson Brothers Construction, argued that the motion must be denied because neither the subcontract nor the prime contract contained an express agreement to arbitrate disputes.

The Magistrate held that, although the subcontract made no mention of arbitration or alternative dispute resolution, a clause in the prime contract which had been incorporated into the subcontract was binding and enforceable by Ratliff as a party to the subcontract. The court noted that Ratliff was not asserting claims as a third party, but rather as a party to the subcontract that was naturally anticipated by the prime contract.

Interpreting the language of the provision at issue, the Magistrate held that “based on the generally accepted description and definition of ‘arbitration,’” an agreement to submit disputes to a neutral forum for “hearing and decision” by “arbitration” refers to a binding arbitration process. Thus, the Magistrate recommended that the Motion to Compel Arbitration be granted. Dobson Brother Constr. v. Ratliff, Inc., Case No. 08-3103 (USDC D. Neb. Nov. 6, 2008).