Winning Formula for Construction Litigation – Lessons Learned from a Recent Trial Win

more+
less-
Most construction contracts for major projects have arbitration provisions or jury trial waivers. As a result, construction litigators do not often get to present high-value complex cases to juries. Pepper’s Construction Law Practice Group recently completed a four-week jury trial for Utility Line Services arising out of claims and counterclaims relating to the construction of a natural gas gathering pipeline and associated facilities serving the Marcellus Shale See more +
Most construction contracts for major projects have arbitration provisions or jury trial waivers. As a result, construction litigators do not often get to present high-value complex cases to juries. Pepper’s Construction Law Practice Group recently completed a four-week jury trial for Utility Line Services arising out of claims and counterclaims relating to the construction of a natural gas gathering pipeline and associated facilities serving the Marcellus Shale play.

The trial included payment disputes, delay claims, scheduling issues, accounting issues and environmental claims.

The result was a $23 million verdict and a finding of bad faith under the Pennsylvania Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act for the plaintiff and zero verdict on the defendant’s $21 million counterclaim.

A large part of the successful result was simplifying complex facts for presentation to the jury and formulating and staying on a clear message.

See less -

Embed Video

Copy

Topics:  Bad Faith, Construction Contracts, Construction Defects, Construction Disputes, Contractors, Subcontractors

Published In: Construction Updates, Environmental Updates

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Pepper Hamilton LLP | Attorney Advertising

Other Videos by Pepper Hamilton LLP