“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).
Roads & Bridges | Award Upheld in W. Va. Caisson Dispute
AWARD UPHELD IN W.VA. CAISSON DISPUTE
Federal court reinforces high bar for overturning arbitration
In 2018, the West Virginia Department of Highways (DOH) awarded […]
Roads & Bridges | Let the Contract Lead
LET THE CONTRACT LEAD
Documents offer guidance needed to manage risk without derailing projects
Construction is an industry of managed risk. Whether the prices […]
Roads & Bridges | When is an Invoice Really an Invoice?
WHEN IS AN INVOICE REALLY AN INVOICE?
All court decisions are opinions. Appellate court decisions are typically made by a panel of three […]
Roads & Bridges | Clarifying Punitive Damages
CLARIFYING PUNITIVE DAMAGES
In June 2021, the South Dakota Department of Transportation contracted for the demolition and construction of a bridge on State […]
Roads & Bridges | When Approximate Means Assumed Risk
WHEN APPROXIMATE MEANS ASSUMED RISK
A New York Court Shows How Performance Specifications Can Leave Contractors Holding the Bag
Sometimes when we are told […]
Roads & Bridges | From Roman Arches to AI
FROM ROMAN ARCHES TO AI
Can Construction Evolve Without Risk?
The construction industry blends old with new. From ancient Roman archways and aqueducts and […]
Roads & Bridges | Caught in the Middle
CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE
New Mexico bridge case highlights the importance of written agreements for changes and delay compensation
In construction contracting, hope for […]
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 […]
