Fought & Co. v. Steel Engineering & Erection, Inc.
951 P.2d 487 | Hawaii Supreme Court | 1998
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Fought & Co. sued Steel Engineering and won at trial. Steel then had to pay Fought's attorney fees. Steel tried to pass those fees to Kiewit (another contractor), and the Hawaii Supreme Court allowed it under the "Uyemura rule." This rule lets a contractor recover legal costs if another party's wrongful actions forced them into a lawsuit. For subcontractors, this means you might have to pay a contractor's legal bills if your actions cause them to defend themselves in court.
Key Takeaways
- •If your actions cause another contractor to get sued, you may have to reimburse their attorney fees and court costs, even if you weren't the original defendant.
- •Out-of-state lawyers helping local counsel can bill their full fees under Hawaii law—don't assume you can avoid costs by using only local attorneys.
- •The Uyemura rule is broad: any 'necessary expenses incurred to protect interests' due to another's wrongful act can be recovered, so document everything if you're forced into litigation.
A party involved in litigation due to another's wrongful act may recover necessary expenses incurred to protect interests.
Frequently Asked Question
Can I make another contractor pay my legal bills if their actions forced me to sue?
Yes, under Hawaii's Uyemura rule. If another party's wrongful conduct draws you into litigation, you can recover necessary legal expenses and attorney fees from them. This applies even if you weren't the original defendant—you can seek indemnification for costs incurred to protect your interests.
Related Cases
Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Tex.
Forum-selection clauses in federal contracts are enforced through §1404(a) transfer motions, not §1406(a) dismissals, and must be given controlling weight except in exceptional circumstances.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy
Sovereign immunity bars a contractor's breach-of-contract suit against a state agency absent express legislative consent; neither the agency's conduct, contract terms, nor general statutes waive immunity from suit.
Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit
A contractor must exhaust administrative remedies established by a regional transportation authority before pursuing breach of contract claims in court, even when the authority lacks governmental immunity from suit.
Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Systems, Inc.
A manufacturer must indemnify an innocent seller for products liability litigation costs under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.002(a), even if the seller did not sell the particular defective product that injured the plaintiff, provided the seller qualifies as a 'seller' under the statute.
General Services Commission v. Little-Tex Insulation Co.
The State does not waive sovereign immunity from breach-of-contract suits by accepting contract benefits; Chapter 2260's administrative procedure is the exclusive remedy for such claims.
Associated Indemnity Corp. v. CAT Contracting, Inc.
A surety does not owe a common law duty of good faith to its principal, but good faith is a contractual condition precedent to indemnification, requiring proof of improper motive or willful ignorance rather than mere negligence.