“Circuit court litigation comes at a price, sometimes a heavy price.”
Does your contract include an attorneys fees provision? Does it include words like “reasonable” or “prevailing party?” If so, then the prevailing party may be reimbursed for its “reasonable” attorneys fees expended in the litigation or arbitration process.
On April 13, 2017, the Virginia Supreme Court held the trial court of the City of Virginia Beach abused its discretion when the plaintiff recovered the entire amount it sought from the defendant ($500), but defendant only had to pay $375 out of the $9,568.50 total attorneys fees expended to reach the judgment.
Under Virginia law, a Court or tribunal (e.g., arbitrator or arbitration panel) will typically consider at least seven different factors to determine how much is “reasonable.” Determining a reasonable amount is not a simple ratio calculation nor can it be predicted with certainty. The Court stated “merely applying a ratio between the damages actually awarded and damages originally sought will not satisfy the reasonableness inquiry.”
The Court also cautioned that parties should be careful not to overinflate their damages as “an unreasonably exaggerated claim for damages provokes a proportional response.” “This unnecessarily inflates the costs of litigation for both sides and increases the possibility that one will end up liable to the other for an exorbitant award of attorney’s fees.”
Lambert v. Sea Oats Condominium Association, Inc., Record No. 160269 (April 13, 2017).
Insurance Company Had No Duty to Defend Under Eight Corners Rule
To decide if an insurer has a duty to defend, a Virginia State or Federal Court may only look at the allegations in the complaint and the insurance policy to determine if a judgment against the insured will be covered by the policy.
Owner SOL When Mandatory Mediation Didn’t Toll Statute of Limitations
Contract interpretation strives to find the meaning of all parts together.
Government Must Review Claims in Good Faith, Not “Conjure Up” a “Baseless Retaliation”
A contracting officer’s review of certified claims submitted in good faith is not intended to be a negotiating game where the agency may deny meritorious claims to gain leverage over the contractor.
Termination for Convenience was OK to Get a Lower Price
When Massachusetts’ highest State court rejected Federal law on termination for convenience (T4C) a public entity’s “sole discretion . . . for […]
Pirates (Parties) Should Arbitrate Arbitrability
Yes, the word “pirates” is an anagram for “parties.” Participants in a lawsuit, arbitration, or mediation are collectively referred to as parties. Are they pirates too?
Very Bad Behavior Without Bad Faith is Not a Breach of Contract
Despite “abhorrent” behavior by the Army Corps of Engineers, a majority of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals held there was […]
Government Construction Contracts Require Bonds, Even When Contract Doesn’t Say So
Yesterday (Nov. 5, 2018), the Fed. Cir. Ct. of Appeals again endorsed the Christian doctrine, which can make unstated requirements part of a government contract.
Government’s Negligent Estimate a Trick?
The Government’s negligent estimate failed to provide the “most current information available.”
Prime Contractor Had No Duty to Help Surety Investigate Sub’s Default
We all know what happens when we “ASS-U-ME” something. So, we should all carefully avoid assuming things unnecessarily.










