Cases: Construction – Page 4 – Cal Attorneys Fees

Construction/Fee Clause Interpretation: Where Payment Bond Made Clear That Surety Not Liable To Additional Fees/Costs Above Penal Bond Sum, Party Obtaining Fees In Derogation Of This Limitation Not Entitled to Fees

March 14, 2014

Only County Entitled to Additional Fees/Costs Over Penal Sum Based on Clear Terms in Payment Bond. In Granite Constr. Co. v. Bond Safeguard Ins. Co., Case No. C066759 (3d Dist. Mar. 13, 2014) (unpublished), surety under a payment bond lost an exoneration argument at trial based on a settlement agreement which had a

Construction/Reasonableness Of “Fees On Fees”: On Third Appeal, Trial Court Mainly Gets Award Of Prompt Payment Statutory Fees Right

Cases: Construction, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

December 2, 2013

However, Appellate Court Found Small “Fees on Fees” Award To Be Abuse of Discretion. In a third round of appeals, P&D Consultants, Inc. v. City of Oakland, Case No. D060760 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 27, 2013) (unpublished), the appellate court considered whether the trial judge properly fixed attorneys’ fees under California’s prompt

Construction: Contractor Not Entitled To Fee Recovery Under Government Code Section Only Allowing Recovery To Local Agency

Cases: Construction

November 4, 2013

Former Payment Bond Fee Entitlement Section Inapplicable Because Record Did Not Show Public Project Involved. In Nissho of Calif., Inc. v. Bond Safeguard Ins. Co., Case No. E052746 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 22, 2013) (published), contractor recovered over $1 million against owner and surety giving a payment guarantee through bonds for offsite

Construction: Failure To Appeal Postjudgment Fee Denial Order Doomed One Appeal

Cases: Construction

May 16, 2013

Lower Court Correctly Denied Fees Under Prompt Payment Statute Based On Decisional Law Under Similar Statutory Provision For you construction aficionados, Underground Construction Co., Inc. v. City of Oakland, Case No. A130752 (1st Dist., Div. 4 May 15, 2013) (unpublished) will be of interest. It is warmer down below . . . Travel in

Arbitration/Construction/Prevailing Party: $901,085.27 Fee Recovery Goes POOF! When Appellate Court Determines That Defendant Was Dismissed After Arbitration With Other Parties

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Construction, Cases: Prevailing Party

April 18, 2013

Defendant Was Neither a Party to the Property Owner-HOA Settlement Nor Resulting Arbitration. Owner hired contractor to convert a hotel it owned into apartments and retail space. A few years later, the apartments were converted to condos and sold to the public, with an HOA being formed. Owner had to disclose certain construction