How often have you wanted to take a dispute “to the mattresses” (think, The Godfather), but the cost was prohibitive? You have a winnable case, but the cost to prove it is not worth it. Often, this rationale results in settlement – the subject of another post. One of the largest cost items to prove your case can be attorneys’ fees.
Under the so-called “American Rule,” each party pays his, her, or its own attorneys’ fees, regardless of the outcome. The terms of an agreement, however, can modify that general rule by including a provision granting, typically, the prevailing party its attorneys’ fees spent to win the case.
But, even if you forgot to or were unable to include such a provision in your contract, consider whether there is an arbitration provision? Does that arbitration provision incorporate the Rules of the AAA (the American Arbitration Association, not the roadside assistance entity)?
Under the current Rule-48 of the AAA Construction Industry Arbitration Rules, the arbitration award to the winning/prevailing party “may include . . . an award of attorneys’ fees if all parties have requested such an award” AND even if the agreement does not provide for an award of attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party. City of Chesterfield v. Frederich Construction, Inc., 2015 WL 1814471 (Mo. Ct. App., Apr. 21, 2015).
In City of Chesterfield, the Missouri Court of Appeals held that because both parties requested attorneys’ fees in the early pleading phase (i.e., demand for arbitration and answering statement) and because the arbitrators so chose to invoke Rule-48 (Rule-45 at the time of the decision as the AAA Rules were most recently revised in July 2015), the prevailing party received its attorneys’ fees spent to achieve that victory.
Next time you have the choice of whether to arbitrate or litigate, consider how the AAA Rules may influence your decision. For example, if there is no attorneys’ fees provision in your contract, but the AAA apply, then if you’re on the fence whether to litigate or arbitrate and you have a good case, and all other things are equal, you could get attorneys’ fees when/if you succeed. On the other hand, if you’re answering a demand for arbitration, think twice before absent-mindedly demanding attorneys’ fees if you’re case has some large potential pitfalls.
Roads & Bridges | Wait and It’s Waived
WAIT AND IT’S WAIVED
Roads & Bridges | Supreme Court Ruling on Arbitration Delay
Don’t wait to arbitrate! Progressing too far down the litigation […]
Roads & Bridges | Court Defines When Contractors Can Withdraw Due to Mistakes
BIDDING BLUNDER
Roads & Bridges | Court Defines When Contractors Can Withdraw Due to Mistakes
For over 125 years, the vast majority of jurisdictions […]
FEDERAL CONTRACT TERMINATION OR MODIFICATION
The White House has directed Agency heads to “terminate or modify . . . covered contracts.” With some exceptions, there are […]
Roads & Bridges | Maximizing Damage Recovery
MAXIMIZING DAMAGE RECOVERY
Tracking Costs, Avoiding Duplication in Liquidated and Actual Damage Claims
A County and Contractor contracted for construction of a road and […]
Roads & Bridges | Roadwork, Delays and Disputes
ROADWORK, DELAYS, AND DISPUTES
The Subcontract Case In Pecos County, Texas
“Road construction is ubiquitous in our society. . . .” C&C Road […]
Roads & Bridges | Understanding Sovereign Immunity
UNDERSTANDING SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY| Public Contracts and Lessons from Recent Texas Cases
Generally, governmental entities are immune from lawsuits. One exception is contractual. If […]
Roads & Bridges | Indiana Court Upholds Broad ND4D Clause
INDIANA COURT UPHOLDS BROAD ND4D CLAUSE | Ruling Precludes Subcontractor Claims for Delay and Acceleration Damages
This is the story of an Indiana […]
Roads & Bridges | Some Conditions Apply
SOME CONDITIONS APPLY | The scope of insurance policy coverage and what the terms dictate
At some time or another, many have tried […]
Roads & Bridges | Contract Termination
CONTRACT TERMINATION | An unpredictable case teaches hard lessons to each party involved
Court decisions are “opinions.” There are majority and dissenting (disagreeing) […]









