Skip to Content

Construction Law

Walsworth’s construction team provides a broad range of legal services and advises clients at every stage of the construction process, from contract negotiation and drafting to resolution of claims. We represent developers, general contractors, architects, engineers, construction managers, subcontractors, municipalities, construction product manufacturers and suppliers. Our lawyers have over 30 years of collective experience representing clients in complex cases involving condominiums, single family homes, high-rise urban towers, office buildings and other large scale commercial developments.

With extensive experience handling construction claims, we use our knowledge of laws and industry practices to effectively tackle issues involving purchase agreements, warranty and guarantees, surety, indemnity, change orders, delay damages, licensing, alter ego, bonding, easements, mechanics liens and employment and independent contractor issues.

We practice before all federal and California trial and appellate courts and are experienced with binding contractual arbitration. Our lawyers also have extensive negotiation training and experience, and proactively engage in alternative dispute resolution. Our experience in construction litigation has resulted in dismissals, successful rulings on motions for summary adjudications, defense verdicts at trial and thousands of favorable settlements.

We have extensive knowledge of technical design and construction issues involving every aspect of the construction process, including:

  • Roofing
  • Concrete
  • Asphalt
  • Stucco
  • Windows
  • Soils
  • Waterproofing
  • Dewatering
  • Electrical
  • Plumbing
  • HVAC
  • Mold

We deal with a vast scope of related matters, including:

  • Construction Contract Formation and Negotiation
  • Construction-Site Injuries
  • Wrongful Death Cases
  • Contractor Licensing Issues
  • Mechanics Liens
  • Professional Design and Engineering Liability
  • Residential and Commercial Construction Defect Litigation

Representative Successes

  • Borel Private Bank & Trust v. Alain Pinel et. al. – Obtained a defense verdict for the lead defendant contractor in a designated complex litigation involving allegations of construction defect damages and intentional acts. A post-trial verdict of attorney’s fees was awarded against the plaintiff, and the verdict and fees were subsequently affirmed on appeal.
  • Heffel v. The Presley Companies – Secured a unanimous defense verdict for client roofer after a six-week jury trial in a case brought by the owner of a large single family home who alleged a variety of construction defects, water intrusion and mold. The jury also awarded our client over $160,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs.
  • RRR, LLC v. Swinerton Builders – Successfully negotiated a favorable settlement contribution that was less than 10 percent of the developer’s initial demand and approximately one percent of the total $4.5 million dollar settlement in a designated complex construction defect matter involving twin four-story commercial office buildings. A full spectrum of construction defects were alleged, including the need to replace all roofing materials installed by our roofing subcontractor client.
  • Kirk v. Menaged – Represented the lead defendant developer/contractor in a designated complex litigation construction defect case involving a custom single family residence. During trial, the court granted a dispositive motion in our client’s favor.
  • Hensel Phelps v. Tremco – Summary judgment granted for the product manufacturer in a complex construction case where plaintiff alleged defects in a high rise condominium building.
  • Jassim v. Village Builders – Successfully secured a defense verdict on behalf of a general contractor client in a complex construction defect case involving a multi-million dollar custom home in Laguna Beach.
  • Chavez v. Acetech – Successfully settled a wrongful death case involving the electrocution of an independent contractor on a construction site. Our general contractor client assumed responsibility for overall site safety and failed to recognize in safety inspections that scaffolding was installed in close proximity to overhead power lines. Successful indemnity and contributory negligence arguments were used to significantly reduce the client’s potential liability and overall contribution to the settlement. The total settlement was less than 50 percent of the last demand and the client’s portion of the settlement was only 30 percent.
  • Carlisle, et al. v. Pardee. District Court, Clark County Nevada – Successfully represented a roofing subcontractor in a mediated settlement of a class action construction defect case involving 406 homes.