The legal needs of the construction industry is multi-faceted. From developers to large design and construction groups to public entities, Gislason & Hunter has represented a wide variety of clients tapping into multiple practice areas and bringing the right experts and knowledge forward. We help clients with real estate transactions, zoning, financing, negotiations, contracts, disputes, litigation, employment issues, bonding and liens plus more as they approach complex projects as well as daily construction situations and opportunities.
Our accomplished attorneys bring substantial expertise to the Construction industry to deliver the very best in service and results.
Cases & Clients
King’s Cove Marina, LLC v. Zinniel Elec. Co., et al., Dakota County, No. 19AH-CV-14-2282
Successful verdict at trial defending a construction defect claim concerning the installation of a new roof and solar panel system. Our client was also successful on our counter claim for breach of contract.
Obtained an arbitration award in a two-week construction arbitration in which the award from the panel was $2.0 Million less than the Client's final offer and $5.0 Million less than the claimant's final demand.
Jury Ruled in Favor of Subcontractor Responsible for Deficiencies
A Dakota County jury ruled in favor of R. Steven Tillitt’s general and electrical contractor following an eight day trial in 2015. The client’s customer was dissatisfied with the roof installed by the client’s subcontractor and with the performance of the solar collection system installed on top of the roof. Seven different expert witnesses testified as well as many fact witnesses. The Court and the jury vindicated Steve’s client’s work and materials and found the roofing subcontractor responsible for deficiencies in the roof system. Following the verdict, Steve’s client received the sums the customer had refused to pay for the project.
In 2016 Cory Genelin represented a commercial construction contractor in arbitration. Mr. Genelin's client had terminated an excavation subcontractor due to delays. The subcontractor brought suit in arbitration, claiming over $550,000 in lost profits. Mr. Genelin prepared for arbitration, showing the severity of the subcontractor's nonperformance, and forced the subcontractor to settle for nothing more than what was owed on the work already completed.