Construction Law Review is an update and discussion of current trends in construction law, published by attorneys at Pepper Hamilton LLP with offices in Philadelphia, New York, Boston, Washington DC, Pittsburgh, Princeton, Wilmington, Silicon Valley, Orange County, Los Angeles, Harrisburg, Detroit, and Berwyn.
This case arises out of the alleged defective construction of a condominium complex in North Carolina. In 2009, the developer on the project filed suit for the alleged construction defects. This related coverage lawsuit then ensued between the parties’ insurers regarding a duty to defend the general contractor.
On March 21, 2019, a Utah federal court granted Defendants MBA General Contracting, LLC and Cory Martin’s motion to dismiss R&O Construction Company’s claim for attorney fees.
R&O, as general contractor of a construction project, entered into two subcontracts with MBA to perform concrete work. The first subcontract, entitled Master Subcontract Agreement, outlined general obligations between the parties. The second, entitled Work Authorization Document, outlined more specific obligations. R&O asserted various causes of action against MBA arising from MBA’s alleged breach of the subcontracts, including a claim for attorney fees. MBA moved to dismiss the attorney fees claim, arguing that neither subcontract provides for such an award.