Shorall McGoldrick Brinkmann



About Us



Contact Us



Defense in Construction Defect Litigation

Construction Defect Attorneys

Our Phoenix construction defect lawyers defend claims relating to stucco, roofs, mold, sulfate attacks, grading and drainage, dezincification of plumbing materials, window failures and concrete foundation installation.

Shorall McGoldrick Brinkmann is able to address not only Arizona construction litigation issues, but also to provide expertise with respect to insurance coverage matters related to construction and professions in the construction industry.

We represent developers, general contractors, subcontractors, design professionals and materials manufacturers, as well as companies that insure their interests. Phoenix construction companies and their insurers benefit from our detailed initial analysis and assessment of complicated construction claims in order to identify a client's potential exposure.


Our construction litigation lawyers have particular knowledge of litigation involving construction defect claims relating to stucco, roofs, mold, sulfate attacks, grading and drainage, dezincification of plumbing materials, window failures, and concrete foundation installation. 

Some of the law firm’s major accomplishments in construction defect litigation include the following successful representations:

  • In 2012, we obtained a no-cost settlement for a window subcontractor accused of defective window installation at a Phoenix condominium project. The plaintiff originally demanded more than $500,000 to settle the claims. Through the strategic use of a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment and dispositive motion practice, we convinced the plaintiff to settle for no cost to avoid its potential liability for our client’s attorneys’ fees and expert fees and doubling its taxable costs.

  • Also in 2012, we obtained another no-cost settlement for a grading and paving subcontractor that was accused of defectively performing the mass grading at a Phoenix-area apartment complex. Through the use of dispositive motion practice aimed at disposing of the claims and obtaining reimbursement of our client’s defense costs, the firm convinced both the plaintiff and the cross-claiming general contractor to settle with our client for no cost.

  • In 2011, we obtained a de minimus settlement (less than $5,000) of claims exceeding $1 million against a stucco subcontractor accused of defectively installing stucco at a 40-building Phoenix condominium project. The firm’s dispositive motions regarding the applicability of the statute of repose to many of the buildings and the ripeness of the subcontractor’s duty to defend obligation, combined with the development of strong factual defenses by the firm’s stucco expert, likely influenced the general contractor to settle for a fraction of its initial settlement demand.

Other recent successful outcomes include:

  • Defending a plumbing products manufacturer in a $10 million property damage claim involving alleged dezincification in connection with a high-rise condominium project

  • Defending roofing subcontractors in numerous lawsuits involving roofing-related claims exceeding $1 million

  • defending grading and drainage subcontractors in numerous lawsuits involving water drainage-related claims

Tom Shorall

Tom Shorall

Jason Boblick

Jason Boblick


Other Valuable Services for Contractors

Shorall McGoldrick Brinkmann also represents construction clients in a variety of matters related to:

  • Arizona Registrar of Contractors (ROC) claims

  • Mechanics' and materialmen's liens

  • Bid protests and award disputes

  • Contract defaults and terminations

  • Bid, payment and performance surety bond claims

SMB Legal Notes

Insuring Construction Defect Litigation (2010): The California Supreme Court's decision in Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Admiral Insurance recognized that many common commercial general liability policies allow for a "continuous trigger" of coverage.

Arizona Court Creates Second Economic Loss Rule (2010): The economic loss rule now applies to construction defect cases, but its application differs from product liability cases

Arizona Clarifies Non-Party at Fault Standards (2009): For a notice of nonparties at fault to be effective, it must state facts that will explain why a relevant nonparty is at fault for the damages alleged.