In Crosby, as the Trustee of Aaron Guidry Trust and Trustee of the Lauren Guidry Trust, Guidry and Guidry v. Crosby Enterprises, LLC, Crosby Dredging, LLC, Tala Air Logistics, LLC, Crosby Holding, LLC, Crosby, Trosclair, and Dufrene, 2023-1338 (La. App. 1 Cir. 8/9/24), 2024 WL 3733158, — So.3d —. a five judge panel of
By the Kean Miller Construction Team
Conventional wisdom holds that arbitration is a more preferable mechanism for dispute resolution than full-blown litigation in the court system. Knowing nothing else about the particulars of a particular dispute, if arbitration is available as an alternative to state or federal litigation, we generally advise our clients to arbitrate.
Parties to a construction contract often expressly agree that any disputes shall be resolved through arbitration. Traditionally, construction entities have placed these “arbitration clauses” into their contract under the belief that arbitration would lead to the resolution of a dispute in a manner quicker and cheaper than a state or federal lawsuit. In recent years
Parties involved in the construction industry have long been familiar with mandatory arbitration as a dispute resolution procedure.
Originally arbitration was said to be more efficient and less expensive than litigation. Over time, experience has shown that arbitration is not necessarily more efficient or more timely.
Regardless of its potential benefits, one fact remains absolute