Sooner Builders & Investments, Inc. v. Nolan Hatcher Construction Services, L.L.C.
2007 OK 50 | Supreme Court of Oklahoma | 2007
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Sooner Builders sued Hatcher Construction for unpaid subcontract work on three Walgreens projects in Oklahoma. The case went to arbitration, and the arbitrator awarded money to Sooner but refused to award attorney fees despite a contract clause requiring the losing party to pay them. The Oklahoma Supreme Court sided with Sooner and ordered the district court to enforce the attorney fees clause, ruling that arbitrators cannot ignore clear contractual fee provisions.
Key Takeaways
- •Always include prevailing party attorney fee clauses in your subcontracts—courts will enforce them even if arbitrators try to ignore them.
- •If an arbitrator denies attorney fees when your contract clearly allows them, you can challenge the award in district court under Oklahoma's Uniform Arbitration Act.
- •Document your contract terms on fee-shifting carefully and reference them explicitly during arbitration proceedings to protect your right to recover legal costs if you win.
The arbitrator manifestly disregarded the parties' agreement on attorney fees.
Frequently Asked Question
Can I recover attorney fees if I win an arbitration against a contractor who owes me money?
Yes, if your subcontract includes a prevailing party attorney fee clause. Even if the arbitrator denies fees, you can ask the district court to vacate or modify the award. Oklahoma courts will enforce clear contractual fee provisions that arbitrators try to ignore.
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.
Edwin P. Harrison, and United States of America, Party in Interest v. Westinghouse Savannah River Company
The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal, holding that the False Claims Act broadly reaches false statements made to obtain government contract approval, not just false payment claims themselves.
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.