Dave was extremely professional but more importantly I was treated as a person not a case. He always returned calls and emails in a very timely manner. I would definitely recommend Dave to help with legal needs! -Jennifer S.

As someone who never had a lawyer, David made everything as simple as possible. He is very easy to communicate with and provides all the answers and support you will ever need. If I ever need a lawyer again, David will be my first choice to contact. -Andrew

I was falsely accused of something and had an order filed against me. Ben represented me during court and successfully had the order dismissed. He also went above and beyond to make sure it would not show up on my record. – Brittany.

Home » Blog » Comparative Fault and Attorney’s Fees

Comparative Fault and Attorney’s Fees


Case:  Pryority Partnership v. AMT Properties, LLC, Et Al.

Facts:  In this action involving a commercial lease, the trial court granted judgment in favor of the lessee, determining that the lessor had materially breached the lease. The court further determined that the lessor was liable for negligent misrepresentation, due to its misrepresentations concerning the condition of the roof on the leased building and its intent to repair the roof, and constructive eviction, due to its failure to timely repair the building and render it tenantable.

Appellate Decision:  The intermediate court affirmed. With respect to the lessor’s argument that the lessee’s reliance on its representations was unreasonable, the court held “this contention sounds in principles of comparative fault,” but the issue was waived because the lessor did not plead the defense of comparative fault. With respect to the lessor’s argument that the lease did not allow for attorney fees in this situation, the court applied “customary rules of contract construction” and determined the language of the lease did so allow.

Review Granted:  August 6, 2021. The Supreme Court’s order specified review was granted with respect to the following two issues:

  1. Whether the affirmative defense of comparative fault is applicable to a negligent misrepresentation cause of action in which the conduct of the plaintiff constituting the basis for that defense also pertains to the justifiable reliance element of the negligent misrepresentation cause of action?
  2. Whether the rules of contract construction may be applied to an ambiguous contractual attorney’s fee provision to determine the intent of that provision and conclude that it is enforceable?

Prediction:  Ben thinks the Supreme Court will affirm for the reasons stated by the intermediate court.

Review: After supplemental briefing, review was dismissed as improvidently granted on March 4, 2022.