Contractors – Make Someone Else Pay Your Attorneys’ Fees

Originally posted 2011-11-18 14:56:45. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Bryan Scott, NC construction attorneyFor this week’s Guest Post Friday at Construction Law Musings, we welcome Bryan G. Scott. Bryan is an attorney at Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLC. His primary areas of practice are commercial and business litigation, construction law and litigation, insurance coverage and bad faith, and products liability defense.

If you read Construction Law Musings regularly like I do, you’re already familiar with the concept of the construction contract as “king.” As a construction practitioner, I spend a lot of time reviewing construction contracts and talking to contractors, both large and small, about issues to be addressed in their contracts. One issue near and dear to my own heart is whether the contract will provide for an award of attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party in a contract dispute. Too often, I find that my potential litigation clients neglected to address that issue in their contracts, and they pay for that mistake once things go south.

Most contractors understand that their general liability insurer will pay an attorney to defend them against third party lawsuits, and they would not dream of undertaking a project without that protection. The reality, however, is that those types of suits are relatively uncommon among construction disputes. Much more common are disputes over payment, delays, changes, and the like. It never ceases to amaze me how many contractors fail to address litigation costs for these relatively routine disputes before they arise.

The default rule in this country is that each party to a dispute is responsible for paying its own attorneys’ fees unless a specific statute or contract provides otherwise. Construction disputes are typically witness-intensive, document-intensive, and technical in nature. As a result, construction litigation can be far more expensive than many other types of disputes. It is crucial for the parties to a construction contract to explicitly address attorneys’ fees for disputes during the negotiation of the contract, regardless of the size or scope of the project or the type of contract employed.

Contractors should not assume that they are covered by using form contracts. For example, the AIA Form A201-2007 General Conditions, the backbone for all AIA form agreements between owners and contractors, omits any reference to attorneys’ fees at all. So did earlier versions of the A201. On the other hand, after 2011 revisions, the General Terms and Conditions of the ConsensusDOCS core contract documents now provide for the prevailing party to recover its attorneys’ fees in dispute resolution proceedings.

Likewise, when a contractor does negotiate up front for an attorney fee provision, it should always consult with an attorney before assuming that the language of the attorney fee provision will be given the meaning the contractor intends. The effect of a provision may not always be easy to determine. Under North Carolina law, for example, the availability and amount of a contractual attorney fee award can vary wildly depending on the specific fee provision and type of contract at issue.

North Carolina courts can award litigants their attorneys’ fees only where a statute expressly provides that right, regardless of what the parties may have contractually agreed to do. Until recently North Carolina had no law expressly authorizing contractual attorney fee provisions in most business contracts. As a result, the enforceability of attorney fee provisions in North Carolina construction contracts has remained somewhat open to interpretation.

In the past, North Carolinas’ courts had to pigeonhole construction contracts into the statute authorizing fee awards in promissory notes and other loan documents as an “evidence of indebtedness.” The problem with that approach has been that attorney fee awards under this statute are capped at 15% of the outstanding balance owed, so a party owed $100,000 under a construction contract could receive a fee award of, at most, $15,000—hardly enough to carry him through the vast majority of construction litigation cases.

As of October 1, 2011, a brand new North Carolina statute now expressly authorizes attorney fee provisions in business contracts governed by state law. The new statute, N.C.G.S. 6-21.6, significantly expands the availability of attorney fee awards, but is not without its own limitations. Importantly, under the new law the fee provision must be reciprocal—providing both parties with the right to recover attorneys’ fees—and all parties to the contract must sign the contract “by hand.” If those requirements are met, the court or arbitrator may now award reasonable attorneys’ fees in accordance with the terms of the contract. Attorney fee awards under the new statute are not capped at 15%. Instead, where the proceeding is primarily for the recovery of money damages, the plaintiff’s fee award cannot exceed the money damages awarded, and the defendant’s fee award cannot exceed the amount in dispute.

While North Carolina’s new fee statute expands the enforceability of attorney fee provisions in construction contracts, generally, that benefit does not extend uniformly throughout the industry. By its terms, N.C.G.S. 6-21.6 does not apply to consumer contracts and thus does not authorize attorney fee provisions in consumer residential construction contracts. Fee awards in that context are still capped at 15% of the outstanding balance owed under the older statute. That doesn’t provide much relief for the residential contractor forced into litigation with a homeowner.

The bottom line for recovering attorneys’ fees under a contractual fee provision in North Carolina construction contracts is this:

  • In commercial construction contracts containing reciprocal fee provisions and signed by hand, the prevailing party may recover all of its attorneys’ fees up to the amount of the award for the plaintiff, or the amount in dispute for the defendant;
  • In all other commercial construction contracts, the prevailing party may be able to recover its attorneys’ fees up to 15% of the amount owed; and
  • In all consumer residential construction contracts, the prevailing party may recover its attorneys’ fees up to 15% of the amount owed under N.C.G.S. 6-21.2.

At the end of the day, there simply is no one size fits all approach to attorney fee provisions in construction contracts. Whether you are a contractor in North Carolina or some other state, it is critically important to address attorneys’ fees at the beginning of your projects. There is nothing that makes my clients happier than forcing their opponent to pay my firm’s fees. Spending an hour with your attorney today might just help you avoid paying for many more hours a year from now. That’s money well spent.

As always, Bryan and I welcome your comments below. Please subscribe to keep up with this and other Guest Post Fridays at Construction Law Musings.

Print Friendly
Send to Kindle
8 Responses to Contractors – Make Someone Else Pay Your Attorneys’ Fees
  1. Christopher G. Hill
    November 18, 2011 | 3:05 PM

    Great thoughts on changes for North Carolina contractors (and those that do business in your state). Thanks for the Guest Post Bryan.
    Christopher G. Hill recently posted..Contractors Need to be Teachers TooMy Profile

  2. Nathan Hinch
    November 18, 2011 | 3:49 PM

    Nice post Bryan. In IL, “American Rule” applies, but parties can generally contract for the recovery of atty fees (not dependent on statutory grant of authority nor capped). All the more reason why any business in IL, not just contractors, need to have a written contract protecting their rights in the event of default.

  3. Christopher G. Hill
    November 18, 2011 | 3:51 PM

    Thank for the insight Nate. VA has the same sort of situation and I believe that all contracts should have attorney fees provisions in them.
    Christopher G. Hill recently posted..Be Careful in Contracting and BusinessMy Profile

  4. Rob Pitkin
    November 18, 2011 | 3:55 PM

    It’s interesting to see how different states handle this matter. In Kansas and Missouri where I practice, attorney’s fees are recoverable if there is a statute or contractual provision. Interesting, I have cases in both states right now where a subcontractor is seeking to impose liability on a surety for attorney’s fees based on the subcontract, not necessarily the bond.

  5. Christopher G. Hill
    November 18, 2011 | 3:59 PM

    Rob, that’s interesting. I find that same logic in mechanic’s lien cases here in Virginia, i. e. seeking to enforce the lien against the property and seeking to recover all fees and other damages through the contract.
    Christopher G. Hill recently posted..Contractors – Make Someone Else Pay Your Attorneys’ FeesMy Profile

  6. Ron White
    November 18, 2011 | 5:47 PM

    I agree: paying the other side’s attorney fees after a hotly contested trial is a bitter pill to swallow-been there, done that. Ouch! That is why I encourage parties in mediation to consider not only their own fees and costs through trial but also the possibilty that they will have to pay the other side’s fees and costs in the event the case does not turn our as planned. Even the most accomplished trial lawyers have learned the hard way that judges and juries can can do the unexpected. Therefore, the question of who pays attorney fees should always be part of the pre-trial assessment of the settlement value of a case.

  7. Bryan G. Scott
    November 18, 2011 | 6:05 PM

    Thanks, Nate and Rob for the comments. Folks here in NC typically believe that it’s an either or kind of thing (either a contract or statute permits recovery), but that’s just not the case unfortunately. Nice to hear that other states make it easier to recover.

    Chris – Our mechanic’s lien statute here permits a fee award to the prevailing party without regard to contract, but only upon finding of unreasonable refusal to resolve the matter. In the right case, it’s an end run around absence of a contractual fee provision.

  8. Christopher G. Hill
    November 19, 2011 | 8:41 PM

    That’s good to know Bryan, thanks again.
    Christopher G. Hill recently posted..Contractors Need to be Teachers TooMy Profile

Leave a Reply

Wanting to leave an <em>phasis on your comment?

CommentLuv badge

About Musings

I am a construction lawyer in Richmond, Virginia, a LEED AP, and have been nominated by my peers to Virginia's Legal Elite in Construction Law on multiple occasions. I provide advice and assistance with mechanic's liens, contract review and consulting, occupational safety issues (VOSH and OSHA), and risk management for construction professionals.

Please join the conversation!

More About Musings
Creative Commons License