Legal and Regulatory

Benefits (and Detriments) of Construction Arbitration

Most construction contracts include an alternative dispute resolution clause that requires parties to resolve all disputes by arbitration instead of going to court. What does it mean and is it a good thing?
By J. Gregory Cahill
July 13, 2018
Topics
Legal and Regulatory

When negotiating construction contracts, parties are typically focused on “big ticket” issues like scope of work, timing and payment. Often contracts are offered as “take it or leave it,” with little, if any, room for negotiation. Important issues can also be “hidden” in the boilerplate. One such important issue is dispute resolution. Most construction contracts now include an “alternative dispute resolution” clause that requires the parties to resolve all disputes by arbitration rather than by going to court. What does this mean and is it a good thing?

Arbitration is simply an alternative to resolving disputes by filing a lawsuit in court. There are important differences, however. The intent of arbitration is to try and resolve disputes more cheaply and more quickly than in court. With a lawsuit, the dispute is resolved in front of either a judge or jury. While the parties have to pay their own attorneys and experts’ fees, they do not have to pay for the judge and jury fees are minimal.

With arbitration, the dispute is resolved in front of a private individual, typically a lawyer or contractor, who is trained and experienced as an arbitrator. Unlike a judge, the arbitrator charges a fee for his or her services, which may be the same or even more than the fees charged by the parties’ own attorneys and experts. Each party to the arbitration must pay an equal share of the arbitrator’s fees. While the prevailing party in arbitration may be able to recover their share of the arbitrator’s fees as damages, they must still pay the fees in the first instance.

Because of this, arbitration may appear to be more expensive. However, as arbitrations typically proceed faster, the additional expense of the arbitrator may actually be less than the extra fees parties have to pay their attorney and experts if the case were to go to court rather than arbitration. While a party can expect four or five hours of testimony at day at trial, they may get seven to eight hours of testimony per day in arbitration. An eight to 10 day jury trial may be resolved in as quickly as three or four days in arbitration.

Another benefit of arbitration is that the case typically is resolved much more quickly. While it may take years to resolve a dispute in court, a typical arbitration may be decided in as little as six to 12 months. Another benefit is privacy. While much of what is filed or presented in court is a matter of public record, arbitration proceedings are private. Even the fact that a party has been involved in arbitration may never be known.

Probably the best benefit of arbitration, however, is that the parties are involved in selecting the arbitrator. They are able to ensure that the arbitrator is knowledgeable of the issues that typically arise during contract disputes (extra work claims, changed conditions, code requirements, etc.). The judge and/or the jury, on the other hand, may have little or no construction knowledge or experience at all.

There are some potential detriments to arbitration that a party needs to be aware of as well. As indicated, arbitration is a creature of contract; if the parties’ contract requires arbitration, it is hard to avoid that obligation. Also, because of the desire to keep costs down and to get to resolution quickly, arbitrators may also limit or prevent discovery (such as witness depositions). Additionally, arbitration (except in rare, limited circumstances) is not subject to appeal. If a party thinks a judge made an incorrect decision, they may appeal the result to a higher court. In arbitration the parties are typically stuck with the arbitrator’s ruling. The arbitration clause may also have notice and timing requirements that need to be strictly followed. Inadvertently missing one can potentially result in a party waiving its right to proceed.

The benefits outweigh any potential detriments of arbitration. It allows the parties to resolve disputes privately and, typically, in a more expeditious and cost effective manner before an experienced “private judge” who is more likely to understand the nuances of the parties’ dispute. The arbitrator’s construction knowledge and experience goes a long way to ensuring that the dispute is properly, and fairly, resolved. A word of caution, however - always ensure that all notice and timing requirements are followed.

by J. Gregory Cahill
J. Gregory Cahill’s practice focuses primarily on complex construction litigation and support for residential and commercial developers and contractors. Mr. Cahill also practices in the areas of insurance litigation and coverage and commercial litigation. He represents builders and developers throughout Arizona, New Mexico and California, including in State and Federal Court and in front of various administrative tribunals and regulatory bodies. He previously practiced in the areas of personal injury and uninsured/underinsured motorist litigation.

Related stories

Legal and Regulatory
Executive Insights 2024: Leaders in Construction Law Cover Art

Executive Insights 2024: Leaders in Construction Law

By Construction Executive
What are the key risks that should always be taken into consideration before any construction contract is signed? Leaders in construction law answer this question and more in this year's edition of Executive Insights: Leaders in Construction Law.
Legal and Regulatory
From ABC: In Defense of Free Enterprise Cover Art

From ABC: In Defense of Free Enterprise

By Ben Brubeck
An overview of recent federal regulatory policies affecting the construction industry—and how Associated Builders and Contractors is pushing back on the ones that most disrupt fair and open competition.
Legal and Regulatory
The Legal Landscape Cover Art

The Legal Landscape

By David McMillin
From recent developments in payment laws and complications with change orders to a reshuffling of risk in contract language, new challenges to DEI policies and more—partners at some of CE’s 2024 Top 50 Construction Law Firms™ pass judgement on the legal issues most relevant to builders and contractors of all sizes.

Follow us




Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Stay in the know with the latest industry news, technology and our weekly features. Get early access to any CE events and webinars.