Cases: Construction

Civil Rights, Construction: In Construction Accessibility Cases Under The Unruh Act, Where A Defendant Asks For A Stay And An Early Evaluation Conference, Plaintiff Must File Information Showing Claimed Damages And The Amounts Of Fees/Costs Incurred As Of The Filing

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Construction

Plaintiff Argued That The Fees Disclosure Invaded The Attorney-Client Privilege, An Argument Rejected At Both The Trial And Appellate Levels. In what we consider to be a very pragmatically reasoned decision, Johnson v. Rubylin, Inc., Case No. H053076 (6th Dist. Dec. 19, 2025) (published) decided that the attorney-client privilege does not support a disability plaintiff […]

Construction, Costs, Ethics, Indemnity, Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: $4.176M Contractual Fee Award To General Contractor And Against Owner Affirmed On Appeal, But Expert Witness Costs Award To General Contractor Reversed As A Matter Of Law

Cases: Construction, Cases: Costs, Cases: Ethics, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Section 1717

Case Explores Fee Clause Interpretation, An Award Of Fees To An Unlicensed Associate Supervised By A California Attorney, And An Award Of Expert Witness Costs Which Were Not Pled Or Proven As Damages.                The Whiting-Turner Contracting Co. v. 250 Fourth Development LP, Case No. A169470 (1st Dist., Div. 5 June 13, 2025) (unpublished) is

Construction, Fee Clause Interpretation: Because Surety’s 2010 Contract Had A Fees Clause, It Was Erroneous To Deny Fees Based On A 2015 Contract Having No Such Clause

Cases: Construction, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

2015 Contract Necessarily Referenced The 2010 Contract, So Remand Was Necessary To Determine If Fee Allocation Was Necessary And The Reasonableness Of Surety’s Request.                In FEI Enterprises, Inc. v. Massachusetts Bay Ins. Co., Case No. B329502 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 4, 2024) (unpublished), surety won a summary judgment against its general contractor for

Construction, Liens For Attorney Fees: In Public Works Case, Under Unusual Circumstances, Surety Prevailed Over Attorney Charging Lien

Cases: Construction, Cases: Liens for Attorney Fees

Surety Won This One Under Attorney Lien Exceptions.             Nichols v. North American Specialty Ins. Co., Case No. B329206 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 17, 2023) (unpublished) is an interesting (appellate court saying “messy”) dispute over the priority between the attorney’s lien of a general contractor and a surety which paid off subcontractors on behalf

Construction, Laffey Matrix, Lodestar, Reasonableness Of Fees: Los Angeles County Superior Court Awards A Little Over $1.3 Million In Fees And About $82,000 In Costs In Construction Dispute With Contractual Fees Clause Entitlement

Cases: Construction, Cases: Laffey Matrix, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Decision Provides Insights Into Judicial Resolution Of Contested Fee And Costs Issues.             Because there has not been a lot of fee or costs decisions in the last couple of weeks, we report on a Los Angeles County Superior Court (Norwalk) final ruling on attorney’s fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff in WnG Construction

Construction: $132,290.00 In Contractual Fees And $5,926.45 In Costs In Homeowner-Contractor Construction Dispute Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Construction

Real Moral Of The Case Is That The Fee/Costs Award Eclipsed $71,700 Compensatory Award Inclusive Of Prejudgment Interest By Quite A Bit             We post on Star Restoration, Inc. v. Salame, Case Nos. B310809/B313512 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 29, 2022) (unpublished) because the affirmed result below, once again, bears out our Mission Statement that

Construction, Costs: Litigant Prevailing On Payment Bond Improperly Denied Costs And Fees Under Routine Costs Statute And Civil Code Section 9564(c)

Cases: Construction, Cases: Costs

It Did Not Matter That Someone Else Paid Or Reimbursed Costs And Fees—Entitlement Was There.             In Cell-Crete Corp. v. Federal Ins. Co., Case No. E075264 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 8, 2022) (published), defendant prevailed in a case involving a payment bond, which raised whether defendant was entitled to routine costs and prevailing party

Construction, Fee Clause Interpretation, Indemnity, Insurance: Subcontractors Not Liable For Gen. Developer Defense Fees Not Relating To Their Work, And Equitable Subrogation Action Fees For Developer Not Recoverable Under Ambiguous Clause

Cases: Construction, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Insurance

At The End, Joint/Several Liability Theory On The First Issue Was Rejected, And Ambiguity Construed Against Developer Drafter On The Second Issue.             This next post might interest construction and insurance practitioners, although it involves the interesting intersection of contractual and insurance equitable subrogation issues—with complexities teeming!             In Berg v. Pulte Home Corp., Case

Allocation, Construction, Section 1717: Contractor Defeating Worker’s Compensation Insurance Claims Not Entitled To Contractual Fees, Which Needed To Be Apportioned On Remand

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Construction, Cases: Section 1717

No Contractual Fee Provisions Covered The Worker’s Compensation Issues.             Although apportionment is sometimes a discretionary exercise, it can be mandatory where there are non-fee entitlement issues which are likely disparate in nature.              Fernandez v. Escutia, Case Nos. H046529/H047015 (6th Dist. Feb. 24, 2021) (unpublished) is a situation where a contractor won a construction

Allocation, Construction, Insurance: Lower Court’s Denial Of Any Fee Recovery To General Contractor’s Insurer For Defending The GC, Based On Equitable Subrogation, Was Error

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Construction, Cases: Insurance

GC’s Insurer Was Entitled To Equitable Reimbursement Of Defense Costs Relating To Subcontractor Work As Well As A Reasonable Allegation Relating To Reasonable “Mixed” Defense Efforts.             In Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc. (St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co.), Case No. E068353 (4th Dist., Div. 2 June 10, 2010) (published), a trial judge denied

Scroll to Top