Mediation and Arbitration in Pennsylvania Construction Litigation: A Practical Path to Resolving Complex Disputes

Construction litigation in Pennsylvania is among the most complicated areas of civil practice. Multi-party conflicts, complex contracts, engineering issues, and insurance coverage questions frequently turn construction disputes into multi-year litigation projects. Cases often become stalled in the Court of Common Pleas as discovery expands, expert reports multiply, and trial schedules get pushed repeatedly. During that time, job sites remain unfinished, contractors and subcontractors wait for payment, and owners are left with uncertainty.

For many construction disputes, mediation and arbitration offer a more efficient, predictable, and cost-effective route to resolution.

Extensive Construction Litigation Experience

Over his 27-year legal career, Michael A. Agresti has handled a wide range of construction litigation matters throughout Pennsylvania, including:

• large-scale commercial development projects

• municipal construction and public infrastructure

• high-end residential construction

• apartment and multi-unit residential developments

• industrial facilities and specialty structures

He has represented owners, contractors, subcontractors, design professionals, and insurers in disputes involving:

• construction contracts and change-order claims

• payment disputes under the Pennsylvania Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act (CASPA)

• mechanics’ liens

• latent defect and statute of limitations questions

• spoliation of evidence

• subrogation claims by insurance carriers

• delay, acceleration, and scheduling disputes

• project-completion and warranty issues

Because he has represented parties across the construction spectrum, Attorney Agresti brings a balanced and informed perspective to his role as a neutral mediator or arbitrator.

Why Construction Cases Often Stall in the Courts

Construction litigation frequently moves slowly for several reasons:

• extensive document and expert discovery

• multiple parties with separate counsel and insurers

• technical issues requiring expert testimony

• congested civil dockets in many counties

• repeated continuances of trial dates

The result is litigation that becomes expensive, disruptive, and slow, with little practical benefit to contractors, design professionals, or property owners who simply want closure and certainty.

How Mediation Can Improve Construction Outcomes

Mediation provides an opportunity for the parties to evaluate their positions in a structured environment that encourages problem-solving and early resolution. A mediator with construction-law experience can help the parties:

• assess expert reports

• evaluate competing causation theories

• identify weaknesses in legal positions

• compare likely outcomes at trial

• explore practical settlement structures

Many construction cases that appear intractable in litigation are capable of resolution with the assistance of an experienced neutral.

When Binding Arbitration Is Preferable

When the parties require a final resolution but want to avoid the delay and expense of trial, binding arbitration can be a superior alternative. Arbitration offers:

• a faster and more predictable schedule

• reduced motion practice

• privacy and confidentiality

• expert-informed decision-making

• a final result with limited grounds for appeal

Arbitration is particularly useful in matters involving complex technical questions or numerous witnesses, where a streamlined, private process may be more efficient than a courtroom trial.

Hybrid Forms of ADR

In addition to traditional mediation and arbitration, hybrid dispute-resolution tools can be especially effective:

• Med-Arb (mediation followed by arbitration)

• Hi-Low arbitration

• arbitration of limited issues (for example, responsibility for delay)

• neutral case evaluation to facilitate settlement discussions

These approaches give parties greater control over process, cost, and outcome.

Why Attorney Agresti Is an Effective Neutral for Construction Matters

Because he has represented owners, contractors, municipal bodies, insurers, and subcontractors, Michael Agresti understands the risks, motives, and legal strategies that drive construction disputes. His decades of construction-law experience enable him to evaluate:

• project records and daily reports

• scheduling and delay claims

• expert testimony

• insurance involvement

• contract requirements and change-order issues

This background allows him to help parties identify common ground and resolve disputes fairly and efficiently.

Conclusion

Construction litigation is expensive, time-consuming, and disruptive. Mediation and arbitration provide practical and cost-effective alternatives for resolving construction disputes, particularly when guided by a neutral with deep construction-law experience. For Pennsylvania attorneys, contractors, property owners, insurers, and public entities seeking efficient resolution, Agresti ADR offers informed and balanced dispute-resolution services designed to move construction matters toward closure.

For more information about construction-related mediation or arbitration, please contact:

Michael A. Agresti magresti@marshlaw.com

Mediator guiding a productive discussion between disputing parties.