|
Mr. Garcia is the founding principal of the firm. He combines 10 years of hands-on construction industry experience with more then 25 years of legal experience primarily in litigation of complex commercial construct and franchise disputes.
Ray grew up in his family’s construction business. He worked as a timekeeper, estimator and ultimately project manager supervising a variety of projects. The projects included college dormitories, hospitals, health care facilities and scientific laboratories, with a present value of over $200 million.
In 1975, Ray attended John Marshall Law School in Chicago, Illinois, where he was one of the most honored members of his class. He served as an editor of the John Marshall Journal of Practice and Procedure, the school’s law review, for two years. He was elected to the Gavel Society and other prestigious leadership organizations.
Following graduation in 1979, he joined Pullman, Comley, Bradley and Reeves in Bridgeport, Connecticut as an associate. In 1981 he formed Garcia and Associates, P.C., forerunner of Garcia and Milas.
He is a member of the American Arbitration Association’s Connecticut Policy Board and on the National Panel of Arbitrators for large commercial cases. He also serves as an Arbitrator by appointment for the American Dispute Resolutions Center.
He is currently a member of the ABA Franchise Law Section, the ABA Litigation Section, the Construction Industry Forum, the ADR Committee and the Construction Litigation Committees of the ABA Litigation Section.
He is a member of the Associated General Contractors of America’s National Surety and Bonding Committee.
He is a past President and director of the Connecticut Building Congress and a member of its prestigious Industry Practice Committee.
Mr. Garcia has
lectured and written extensively on many subjects. Please contact
the firm for a list and copies of articles and seminar papers. Most
recently he authored articles about the application of the Due Process
Clause of the United States Constitution to arbitral awards of punitive
damages.
He
has been lead counsel at trial and on appeal of a number
of significant cases over the years. For example:
•
Gerald Hadelman v. Frederick Deluca, Doctor’s Associates,
Inc., 274 Conn. 442 (2005) Obtained arbitration award
against Franchisor of Subway Restaurants for $300,000 in punitive
damages, legal fees and cost of arbitration (which in the aggregate
could exceed $800,000) without any award of compensatory damages,
which was affirmed by the Connecticut Supreme Court in part because
the Court held Connecticut has no clearly defined policy against
excessive punitive damage awards under the Connecticut Unfair
Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) and arbitration does not constitute
state action, in which case BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore,
517 U.S. 559, 575–85, 116 S. Ct.1589, 134 L. Ed. 2d 809 (1996)
does not apply.
• Alex Charts v. Nationwide Insurance Co., Civil Action 3:97 CV 01621 (CFD December, 2004) Obtained a jury verdict for $2,300,000 for a former agent of Nationwide Insurance based on the theory that the agent was a franchisee of Nationwide and that Nationwide had breached its obligations of good faith and fair dealing, as well as the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. It is the first case in the United States in which a court has decided that an insurance company is a franchisor.
•
PSE Consulting, Inc. v. Frank Mercede and Sons, Inc., 267 Conn.
279, 838 A.2d 135 (2004) Successfully argued before a
jury that an indemnitor was not entitled to collect money it had
paid a subcontractor for a claim allegedly covered by a surety
bond issued by the indemnitor because the Surety had breached
the obligation of good faith and fair dealing implied in every
general indemnity agreement. The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed
the decision on appeal. This was the first time in the country
such a decision had been obtained.
•
Alex Charts v. Nationwide Insurance Co., Civil Action 3:97 CV
01621 (CFD December, 2004) Obtained a jury verdict for
$2,300,000 for a former agent of Nationwide Insurance based on
the theory that the agent was a franchisee of Nationwide and that
Nationwide had breached its obligations of good faith and fair
dealing, as well as the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.
It is the first case in the United States in which a court has
decided that an insurance company is a franchisor.
•
L.G. Defelice, Inc. v. Fireman’s Ins. Co., 41 F. Supp.2d
152, D.Conn., Sep 21 (1998) Argued to a jury that a surety
had an implied contract to provide a bid bond that met the requirements
of Connecticut Department of Transportation procurement regulation,
and was liable in damages when ConnDOT rejected the Contractor’s
bid when ConnDOT determined the bond was non-conforming.
•
Saturn Const. Co., Inc. v. Premier Roofing Co., Inc., 238 Conn.
293, 680 A. 2d 1274 (1996) Successfully argued that The
Connecticut Supreme Court should affirm an order for legal fees
entered by an arbitration panel based on the Connecticut Unfair
Trade Practices Act to a subcontractor who had performed acceptable
work for a general contractor who had been paid for the work by
the State of Connecticut.
•
Larsen Chelsey Realty Co. v. Larsen, 232 Conn. 480, 656 A.2d 1009
(1995) Obtained a jury verdict that for the first time
allowed an employer to impose liability under the Connecticut
Unfair Trade Practices Act on a former employee. The Connecticut
Supreme Court affirmed the decision on appeal.
•
Forge Square Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Construction Services
of Bristol, Inc., 33 Conn. App. 669, 638 A.2d 606 (Conn. App.,
1994) Successfully defended a claim from an owner for
damages for late completion and termination of a construction
contract and then successfully argued that the award of an arbitration
panel, in what was then the longest arbitration in Connecticut,
should be affirmed.
•
PaineWebber, Inc. v. American Arbitration Association, 217 Conn.
182, 585 A.2d 654 (1991) Successfully argued that the
AMEX Window allowed customers of Paine Webber, Inc. under the
standard Paine Webber brokerage account agreement to use arbitration
administered by the AAA. It was one of the first cases in the
country to force a broker to arbitrate before a panel of arbitrators
selected by the AAA rather than the SRO panels assembled by the
Stock Brokerage Industry.
|
