Arbitration in construction is common because it involves issues requiring specialized and technical knowledge. This expertise is considered essential to the goal of construction arbitration: a fair, expeditious and cost-efficient resolution. However, some worry that without an experienced, proactive arbitrator, the lack of court and evidentiary rules could result in a more expensive, and not necessarily more efficient, forum to adjudicate their disputes. The COVID-19 pandemic has thrown another consideration into the mix since most courts are so backlogged with cases that it may be difficult to get to trial in a reasonable time frame, leaving plaintiffs in need of a judgment in a construction case. Whether the dispute involves an owner seeking damages for defective construction or a wrongfully terminated contractor seeking payment, litigants are faced with the prospect of waiting for years on end at great risk and expense. 

As co-chairs of the Construction Law Practice Group at Pashman Stein Walder Hayden, and as the authors of this article, we present a dialogue regarding the pros and cons of arbitrating construction cases.  

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]