When the intricacies of construction-specific laws and regulations matter.
Whether you are an owner, contractor, subcontractor, supplier, or design professional, the construction industry is fraught with risk. Foresight, planning, and risk management can make all the difference. The attorneys in Heyl Royster's Construction Practice have represented construction companies, building and road contractors, project management firms, owners, developers, engineers, and architects in many construction-related disputes and transactional matters involving the intricacies of construction-specific laws and regulations.
Our Construction Practice team understands the inner workings of major building projects and advises clients on liability, risk management, insurance coverage, risk-shifting, and the duties and obligations arising from contractual relationships. We represent construction clients and property owners in contract negotiations, procurement and bidding requirements, performance, and payment matters, including mechanics liens and bond claims.
Our attorneys have defended suits involving catastrophic injury, personal injury, and wrongful death matters in which injuries or alleged injuries can occur on a construction site. Our litigation experience includes construction and design defect cases, construction delay-related claims, and contract disputes.
- Business formation and organization
- Construction defect and delay claims and litigation
- Contract administration, drafting, and negotiations
- Creditors' Rights and Bankruptcy
- Employment and labor issues
- Environmental claims
- Government contracts
- Insurance coverage and claims
- Land use, zoning, planning
- Mergers and acquisitions
- Product liability
- Surety bond claims
- Toxic tort and asbestos claims
- Workers’ compensation claims
HEYL ROYSTER IS A LAW FIRM YOU CAN TRUST
If your business, cooperative, or you as an individual need premier construction services from an industry-leading defense law firm, the dedicated legal minds at Heyl Royster are ready to provide you with the legal advice and legal services that you deserve. From business formation to construction delays, government contracts, labor law, and more, our wide-ranging practices are staffed by experienced litigators ready to come to your defense.
Need Premier Construction Services?
Contact One Of Our Expert Attorneys Today!
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. Central Mutual Insurance Co., 2014 IL App (1st) 133145, 12 N.E.3d 762– Representation of Central Mutual Insurance Company (Central) and its insured (Subcontractor) in a case in which the general contractor (Builder) and its insurer, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London (Underwriters) claimed that Central should have been the primary insurer regarding coverage for severe personal injuries that allegedly occurred to a worker at a home construction site. The dispute arose because, although the subcontractor was contractually obligated to maintain insurance for the builder, the subcontractor agreement was silent as to whether this additional coverage was to be primary or excess. At the trial court level, the firm succeeded in getting Underwriter's declaratory action dismissed on the motion for summary judgment, and the Underwriters appealed. On appeal, the first district agreed with the firm, holding that Central's insurance would be considered excess. There would be no duty to defend or indemnify unless the primary limits were exceeded.
United States of America for the use of Bowman Metal Deck, a division of ARMCO, Inc., and Bowman Met., Mediation – A complex Miller Act case involving millions of dollars in construction delay claims arising from the construction of identical federal prisons in Pekin and Greenville, Illinois. The case was successfully resolved at a mediation for our clients, the steel subcontractors at each site.
Black v. Peoria Marine Construction Co., Inc. and N.E. Finch Co., Inc., Circuit Court, Illinois – Successfully defended in a one-week trial ($75K verdict) construction contractor following a construction accident in which 40-year-old plaintiff permanently disabled and made a settlement demand of $1M.
Swann & Weiskopf Ltd. v. Meed Associates, Inc. 304 Ill. App. 3d 970, 711 N.E.2d 395 (1st Dist. 1999) – Persuaded Illinois Appellate Court, First District, to affirm the trial court's summary judgment dismissing the claim against the engineering firm, which had designed the stormwater system, as being untimely under Illinois Construction Statute of Limitations.
Pettie v. Williams Brothers Construction, Inc. 225 Ill. App. 3d 1009, 589 N.E.2d 169 (2d Dist. 1992)– Refusal to enforce language in an indemnification agreement between a general contractor and the plaintiff's employer. The Illinois Supreme Court later overturned the court's holding and analysis in unrelated litigation.
Represented general contractor in the highly publicized "sick building" case involving the new DuPage County Courthouse, with a defense verdict following a month-long jury trial, which was upheld on appeal.
Representation of asphalt and concrete paving company in numerous claims involving personal injury and property damage at construction sites.