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.

Visit the Careers page to learn more about joining our team.

Construction Articles:

Joint Employment – What Does It Mean?

Author: Steven O'Brien | January 13, 2022 8:37am
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts recently clarified the “joint employment” test for employers, providing specific guidance on the issue.  In Jinks v. Credico (USA) LLC, the court reviewed standards for independent contractors and whether those should apply to joint employers.

Washington Supreme Court Affirms $9.2M Judgment

Author: Shivani Bommakanty, Bryan D. Scholnick | November 18, 2021 10:42am
The Washington Supreme Court considered the issue of whether a jury instruction given in an underlying lawsuit was prejudicial and not harmless to plaintiff.  The Court found plaintiff was not prejudiced by the jury instruction even though the instruction was potentially misleading.  The Appellate decision had found the jury instruction had been prejudicial to plaintiff.  This affirmed a verdict of $9.2 million against Lake Hills Investments, Inc.

Protections Against Implied Warranty of Habitability Claims Broadened in Illinois

Author: Scott Ruksakiati | October 29, 2021 9:00am
For many of us of a certain age, our first exposure to the Latin phrase caveat emptor came from an episode of the classic sitcom, The Brady Bunch.  “Let the buyer beware” was the lesson Mr. Brady imparted to Greg for his spontaneous purchase of a beat-up convertible.  That same lesson was one homebuyers learned for many years.  In Illinois, a seller of real property was not liable to a purchaser for defects in the design or construction of the property which existed, even in a latent state, at the time of the sale.

California’s Evolving Interpretation of Vicarious Liability

Author: Sheila Baker | October 4, 2021 4:10pm
Vicarious liability, the doctrine that imposes liability on a party not directly at fault, is one of the most malleable concepts in California law. Most recently, the Fifth District Court of Appeals in Kern County analyzed the reach of two forms of vicarious liability — the peculiar risk doctrine and the nondelegable rule — in the unpublished matter of Ruckman v. Wildwood Farms.

Some Claims Against Product Manufacturers for Damage to Single Family Residences May Not be Subject to Right to Repair Act Limitations

Author: Darrell Nguyen, Denae M. Olivieri | October 4, 2021 2:55pm
In State Farm General Insurance Company v. Oetiker, Inc. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 940 the Second District Court of Appeal addressed a Right to Repair Act (the “Act”) case concerning a product manufacturer trying to dodge a subrogation action based on the Right to Repair Act, California Civil Code Title 7, Section 895, et seq.i The Court of Appeal determined that the Right to Repair Act governing residential construction defect litigation does not preclude a homeowner, or its insurer, from bringing causes of action which fall outside of the Act.ii
Copyright © 2001–2022 Tyson & Mendes LLP. All Rights Reserved. Website by Big Behavior.