In an era of almost-constant change, even fixed assets such as real estate must be reinvented in order to meet new demands and make a positive contribution to the bottom line. From a simple renovation or adaptive reuse of existing space to the creation of a multifamily residence or the building of a new high-tech manufacturing facility, clients need legal counsel that helps protect their investments and supports cost-effective use.

The Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP construction practice advises thousands of clients, including owners, developers, design professionals, general contractors, subcontractors, construction managers and suppliers, among others, in the acquisition of land and in the development and construction of real estate across the United States. In addition to our construction and land-use lawyers, our team includes land-use planners and real estate paralegals with experience in projects involving office buildings, malls and retail centers, condominiums and mixed-use residential facilities, corporate headquarters, health care facilities, manufacturing, industrial and power plants, warehouses and community centers, among other projects.

In addition to representing public and private entities in the negotiation and closing of real estate purchases, sales and leases, we advise clients in the following areas:

• Negotiation and documentation of development deals, including related governmental incentive packages
• Construction counseling, including negotiation and drafting of design, engineering, bid, procurement, construction, construction management and design/build agreements
• Due diligence evaluations of projects under construction, including debt and equity investments under consideration
• Superfund, brownfields and other environmental remediation and wetlands mitigation programs
• Construction litigation and dispute resolution, including trials in federal and state courts and administrations involving defects, delays, accelerations, conflicts of interest, cost overruns, interferences and the full range of warranty claims

The construction team at Hunton Andrews Kurth works closely with lawyers from the firm's corporate, banking and lending, project finance, environmental, tax and other practice areas to provide comprehensive, coordinated legal solutions.

• Represented large state university in a dispute involving a $40 million addition to its football stadium.
• Represented major contractor in a $5 million dispute with a subcontractor regarding demolition and construction of a new pier at the Norfolk Naval Station.
• Represented major contractor in a $5 million dispute with the federal government regarding demolition and construction of a new submarine pier.
• Represented large church in a $2 million dispute with its general contractor regarding construction of its sanctuary.
• Represented owner of therapy provider in a dispute with its general contractor regarding the installation of its septic system.
• Represented buyer of a major construction company and performed the due diligence relating to pending claims and disputes.
• Represented major contractor in preparing and pursing multimillion-dollar claim resulting from construction of airfield in Iraq.
• Modern Continental South, Inc. v. Fairfax County Water Auth., 70 Va. Cir. 172 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. Feb. 9, 2006), later proceeding, 72 Va. Cir. 268 (Nov. 21, 2006). Following a three-day bench trial, the trial court granted our plea in bar to dismiss the contractor’s $500,000 extra-work claims based on various provisions of the construction contract. 
• Ryan Eastern Inc. v. Toll Bros., Inc., 43 Fed. Appx. 601, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 16181 (4th Cir. Aug. 12, 2002).  Successfully opposed the general contractor’s motion to compel arbitration of a $9 million delay claim against the owner of a luxury golf course and residential community.  The case then settled favorably.
• Yates Constr. Co. v. Fairfax County Water Auth., No. 96-1946, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 14862 (4th Cir. June 19, 1997).  Obtained summary judgment for the owner in this $2 million construction delay case based on the contractor’s failure to comply with the contract’s notice-of-claim and substantiation-of-claim requirements.  The district court’s ruling was affirmed on appeal as a correct application of Virginia contract law and the Virginia Public Procurement Act.
• Triangle General Contractors, Inc. v. Fairfax County Water Auth., No. 96-1254-A (E.D. Va. 1996-1997).  Successfully moved for summary judgment in favor of the owner on the contractor’s two largest claims (totaling $900,000); the contractor dismissed its remaining claims.
• CKS, Inc. v. Fairfax County Sch. Bd., Law No. 141818 (Fairfax County Cir. Ct. 1995-1996).  Successfully defended school system owner against the contractor’s $1 million construction delay claim, which the trial court dismissed as a discovery sanction.  The contractor then paid the school system $25,000 to settle a counterclaim for liquidated damages.
• R.J. Crowley, Inc. v. Fairfax County Sch. Bd., 41 Va. Cir. 55 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1996).  Successfully defended school system against construction delay and acceleration claims based on contract’s notice-of-claim and substantiation-of-claim requirements.
• W.M. Schlosser Co. v. Sch. Bd. of Fairfax County, 980 F.2d 253 (4th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 909 (1993).  Successfully opposed the contractor’s motion to compel arbitration of a construction delay claim.  The Fourth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s ruling that Virginia school boards lack the power under the “Dillon Rule” to submit to binding arbitration and that the Federal Arbitration Act did not require a contrary result.