Construction Litigation

Construction Litigation

Tyson & Mendes has successfully represented design professionals, developers, contractors, subcontractors and suppliers. We handle all aspects of construction-related litigation, including design or construction defects; delay, disruption, and acceleration; earth movement; job-site injury; and more.

In recognition of the fact construction litigation can be protracted and expensive, Tyson & Mendes is dedicated to providing cost-effective service to our clients. We are strong proponents of alternative dispute resolution where appropriate and are actively involved in construction dispute avoidance counseling on behalf of clients. This involves the review and negotiation of contracts in order to minimize risk, as well as negotiation and resolution of disputes to prevent litigation.

Our attorneys have extensive trial and arbitration experience in both state and federal courts, and before the American Arbitration Association and other arbitration forums. Consistent with our emphasis on cost-efficiency, Tyson & Mendes partners with the client at the outset of litigation to discuss specific litigation goals and strategies that consider the most efficient and cost-effective manner of proceeding successfully.

Click here to read articles from our Property Quarterly Newsletter
or visit the Careers page to learn more about joining our team.

Construction Litigation Articles:

Contract-defying Policy of Equitable Grace Period Requires Permanent Improvement to Property

Author: Po Waghalter | November 9, 2020 7:59pm
Normally, contracts are strictly construed, and courts are generally reluctant to veer away from the written terms. However, as with every rule, there is an exception, and with regard to long term lease agreements, there is the quiet but powerful Equitable Grace Period: quiet in that potential beneficiaries are not often aware of its existence, and powerful in that it defies the general policy of strict adherence to contract terms.

Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation – A Look at Subrogation in California

Author: David Ramirez | November 9, 2020 7:54pm
In the recent case of Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation (2020) 52 Cal.App. 5th 571, the 1st District Court of Appeal denied an insurance carrier’s equitable subrogation claim, explaining an insurer’s obligations under its insurance policy are not the same as an indemnitee’s obligations under an indemnity provision.  In other words, as aptly put by the Court of Appeal, while a “subrogated insurer is said to ‘stand in the shoes’ of its insured, because it has no greater rights as the insured. . . [h]ere . . . [the insurer] was seeking to stand...

California Contractor Licensing Law Update: Disgorgement Claims Against Unlicensed Contractor Expire in One Year

Author: Robert Bernstein | November 9, 2020 7:48pm
The California Legislature really wants construction contractors in California to be licensed. As we have written previously, public policy supporting California’s contractor licensing requirement is so strong that even if you know a contractor is unlicensed when you sign a contract with them, you are still entitled to not only to refuse to pay them, you may benefit from any and all work they have performed. It gets even worse for the contractor. You may also sue them to obtain a refund (“disgorgement”) of any...

Use It or Lose It: Owners of Condemned Property Have an Option to Repurchase When Government Fails to Timely Develop or Reauthorize Public Use

Author: David Kahn | August 12, 2020 11:00am
What happens when a city condemns private property for a stated public use but fails to follow through on the development of the public use?  Such was the issue recently decided by the Second District Court of Appeal in Rutgard v. City of Los Angeles published on July 30, 2020. (WL 4361069). The Court held a public entity desiring to retain condemned property must either develop the public use or reauthorize its initial resolution within ten years of the date the original authorizing...

California – Insurance: Genuine Dispute Doctrine

Author: David Ramirez | August 12, 2020 11:00am
In the recent case entitled Fadeeff v. State Farm General Ins. Co. (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 94, the California Court of Appeals, First District  held that triable issues of fact as well as the trial court’s failure to address a request for a continuance precluded summary judgment for an insurer under the “genuine dispute doctrine.”

View more Construction Litigation articles

Copyright © 2021 Tyson & Mendes LLP. All Rights Reserved. Website by Big Behavior.