Construction
Overview
Lightfoot litigators understand the ins and outs of contracting and construction law.
The construction industry's high-value projects — and the negotiated deals behind them — are teeming with risk and potential legal issues, and they involve numerous stakeholders with varying interests. Those realities underscore the need for legal counsel that offers deep industry knowledge and a solid grasp of how construction companies operate.
Lightfoot attorneys have extensive experience in the field of construction law and contracting. Our services include both conflict resolution and conflict avoidance. Not only are we skilled in arbitrating and litigating construction disputes, but we also negotiate and draft contracts and subcontracts with a focus on avoiding or mitigating the financial impact resulting from disputes.
If a dispute manifests, we guide clients through claim preparation, negotiation strategy, mediation, and if necessary, the litigation or arbitration of the construction claim or dispute. While we’re confident and experienced in the courtroom, our goal is always to provide the best resolution for our clients, whether through trial, arbitration, mediation, administrative proceedings or any of the numerous alternatives for dispute resolution.
Lightfoot represents owners, prime contractors, specialty trade contractors and subcontractors across different sectors of the industry. Our attorneys provide proactive advice and guidance, and are experienced in prosecuting or defending claims when necessary. Our practice encompasses a wide variety of commercial and industrial projects across the United States and abroad, including:
- Negotiation of contracts or subcontracts involving steel mills, U.S. embassies, paper and pulp mills, hospitals, schools and universities, casinos, roads and bridges, automobile manufacturing plants and many more.
- Arbitration and litigation of disputes including steel mills and processing plants; hospitals, school and university buildings; high-rise hotels and condominiums; office buildings and mixed-use developments; casinos, lock and dam projects; hurricane protection projects; roads and bridges; petrochemical plants; oil and gas pipelines, terminals, and processing plants; and airport additions and renovations.
Our firm's accomplished attorneys have the capacity, resources and experience to handle even the largest, most complex construction matters.
Representative Matters
- Representing a subcontractor who was performing the design and construction of the cofferdam work on a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers hurricane protection project in New Orleans. The general contractor saw what he thought was an opportunity and deleted a portion of the cofferdam work from our client’s subcontract. When the general contractor attempted to self-perform the cofferdam work, he experienced uncontrollable water intrusion and blamed our client’s design. The general contractor withheld all payment, and we arbitrated claims and counterclaims. Following four days of hearings, the arbitrators awarded our client 100 percent of the subcontract balance, plus interest and attorneys' fees. The arbitrators also denied all of the general contractor’s claims.
- Representing a trade subcontractor against the prime contractor on the baggage claim expansion project at the Huntsville International Airport. The dispute centered around the adequacy of the plans and specifications for the project escalators. After the escalators were installed and substantially complete, the owner and architect rejected them and ordered that they be replaced with larger size escalators. Our client prevailed before the federal trial court and the case was later settled following appeal.
- Representing a major specialty trade contractor on the revitalization of the historic John Marshall Hotel in Richmond, Virginia. At the conclusion of the project, the prime contractor refused to pay approved change orders or to release retainage on the last progress payment, and, when pressed for payment, asserted a delay claim and backcharges. The prime contractor claimed that our client was liable for millions of dollars of delay damages even after credit for unpaid contract balance. After six days of arbitration, our client recovered its full contract balance, two-thirds of our claim amount, prevailed completely on the prime contractor’s counterclaim and was awarded nearly $400,000 in attorneys' fees.
- Representing a piling contractor in a delay, inefficiency and impact claim related to a steel mill project in the Caribbean. The site was not made available to our client in a way that allowed access to the work site as represented in the bid documents and project schedule. We filed for arbitration and, after a brief discovery and motion practice, the claim settled for approximately 75 percent of the amount we requested on behalf of our client.
- Defending the nation’s largest transportation construction contractor in a case where landowners adjacent to a road widening and paving project claimed that our client’s work caused stormwater runoff and resulted in flooding of their property. Our client was dismissed from the lawsuit without any liability.
- Representing the major contractor responsible for construction of the paint shop in a new automotive manufacturing plant. We kept our client’s subcontractors on site as we pursued arbitration against the overall prime contractor, and, after arbitration hearings, the case settled for a sum that resolved both the subcontractors’ claims as well as our client’s claims.
- Representing a national provider of infrastructure materials in a dispute with an engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contractor related to expansion work performed at one of our client’s chemical plants. The project was completed several months late, and the EPC contractor alleged defective specifications, excessive changes and delays, impacts and inefficiencies. Following discovery and extensive analysis of the claim, we conducted a three-day mediation, during which the case settled for a fraction of the amount being sought by the EPC contractor.
- Arbitrating a claim on behalf of a major subcontractor relating to piling and foundations work that it performed on a large commercial project in Mobile, Alabama. The claim involved delays and disruptions due to lack of site access and resequencing of our client’s work. We obtained an award of 100 percent of the amount that we demanded plus interest and attorneys' fees.
- Defending a major general contractor in an arbitration related to road and paving failures, which the owner/developer blamed on our client. We were able to satisfy the arbitrators that the road and paving failures were attributable to poor and unsuitable subgrade installed by others and that our client was not responsible for the failures.
- Representing the paving contractor for an IndyCar Series racetrack. The track owner claimed that the pavement was raveling and defective, and that the entire track had to be milled and repaved at a cost of several million dollars. Following paper discovery and initial depositions, we settled the lawsuit for a reasonable amount.
|
Overview 
Lightfoot litigators understand the ins and outs of contracting and construction law.
The construction industry's high-value projects — and the negotiated deals behind them — are teeming with risk and potential legal issues, and they involve numerous stakeholders with varying interests. Those realities underscore the need for legal counsel that offers deep industry knowledge and a solid grasp of how construction companies operate.
Lightfoot attorneys have extensive experience in the field of construction law and contracting. Our services include both conflict resolution and conflict avoidance. Not only are we skilled in arbitrating and litigating construction disputes, but we also negotiate and draft contracts and subcontracts with a focus on avoiding or mitigating the financial impact resulting from disputes.
If a dispute manifests, we guide clients through claim preparation, negotiation strategy, mediation, and if necessary, the litigation or arbitration of the construction claim or dispute. While we’re confident and experienced in the courtroom, our goal is always to provide the best resolution for our clients, whether through trial, arbitration, mediation, administrative proceedings or any of the numerous alternatives for dispute resolution.
Lightfoot represents owners, prime contractors, specialty trade contractors and subcontractors across different sectors of the industry. Our attorneys provide proactive advice and guidance, and are experienced in prosecuting or defending claims when necessary. Our practice encompasses a wide variety of commercial and industrial projects across the United States and abroad, including:
- Negotiation of contracts or subcontracts involving steel mills, U.S. embassies, paper and pulp mills, hospitals, schools and universities, casinos, roads and bridges, automobile manufacturing plants and many more.
- Arbitration and litigation of disputes including steel mills and processing plants; hospitals, school and university buildings; high-rise hotels and condominiums; office buildings and mixed-use developments; casinos, lock and dam projects; hurricane protection projects; roads and bridges; petrochemical plants; oil and gas pipelines, terminals, and processing plants; and airport additions and renovations.
Our firm's accomplished attorneys have the capacity, resources and experience to handle even the largest, most complex construction matters.
Experience
Representative Matters
Representing a subcontractor who was performing the design and construction of the cofferdam work on a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers hurricane protection project in New Orleans. The general contractor saw what he thought was an opportunity and deleted a portion of the cofferdam work from our client’s subcontract. When the general contractor attempted to self-perform the cofferdam work, he experienced uncontrollable water intrusion and blamed our client’s design. The general contractor withheld all payment, and we arbitrated claims and counterclaims. Following four days of hearings, the arbitrators awarded our client 100 percent of the subcontract balance, plus interest and attorneys' fees. The arbitrators also denied all of the general contractor’s claims.
Representing a trade subcontractor against the prime contractor on the baggage claim expansion project at the Huntsville International Airport. The dispute centered around the adequacy of the plans and specifications for the project escalators. After the escalators were installed and substantially complete, the owner and architect rejected them and ordered that they be replaced with larger size escalators. Our client prevailed before the federal trial court and the case was later settled following appeal.
Representing a major specialty trade contractor on the revitalization of the historic John Marshall Hotel in Richmond, Virginia. At the conclusion of the project, the prime contractor refused to pay approved change orders or to release retainage on the last progress payment, and, when pressed for payment, asserted a delay claim and backcharges. The prime contractor claimed that our client was liable for millions of dollars of delay damages even after credit for unpaid contract balance. After six days of arbitration, our client recovered its full contract balance, two-thirds of our claim amount, prevailed completely on the prime contractor’s counterclaim and was awarded nearly $400,000 in attorneys' fees.
Representing a piling contractor in a delay, inefficiency and impact claim related to a steel mill project in the Caribbean. The site was not made available to our client in a way that allowed access to the work site as represented in the bid documents and project schedule. We filed for arbitration and, after a brief discovery and motion practice, the claim settled for approximately 75 percent of the amount we requested on behalf of our client.
Defending the nation’s largest transportation construction contractor in a case where landowners adjacent to a road widening and paving project claimed that our client’s work caused stormwater runoff and resulted in flooding of their property. Our client was dismissed from the lawsuit without any liability.
Representing the major contractor responsible for construction of the paint shop in a new automotive manufacturing plant. We kept our client’s subcontractors on site as we pursued arbitration against the overall prime contractor, and, after arbitration hearings, the case settled for a sum that resolved both the subcontractors’ claims as well as our client’s claims.
Representing a national provider of infrastructure materials in a dispute with an engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contractor related to expansion work performed at one of our client’s chemical plants. The project was completed several months late, and the EPC contractor alleged defective specifications, excessive changes and delays, impacts and inefficiencies. Following discovery and extensive analysis of the claim, we conducted a three-day mediation, during which the case settled for a fraction of the amount being sought by the EPC contractor.
Arbitrating a claim on behalf of a major subcontractor relating to piling and foundations work that it performed on a large commercial project in Mobile, Alabama. The claim involved delays and disruptions due to lack of site access and resequencing of our client’s work. We obtained an award of 100 percent of the amount that we demanded plus interest and attorneys' fees.
Defending a major general contractor in an arbitration related to road and paving failures, which the owner/developer blamed on our client. We were able to satisfy the arbitrators that the road and paving failures were attributable to poor and unsuitable subgrade installed by others and that our client was not responsible for the failures.
Representing the paving contractor for an IndyCar Series racetrack. The track owner claimed that the pavement was raveling and defective, and that the entire track had to be milled and repaved at a cost of several million dollars. Following paper discovery and initial depositions, we settled the lawsuit for a reasonable amount.
|
