A federal district court confirmed an arbitration award in favor of homeowners over disputes concerning a cabinet and closet job for a luxury home. The U.S. Court appeals affirmed the judgment. Res judicata and collateral estoppel figure prominently in the appeal. Dissatisfied with the arbitration result, the cabinet maker and its owners brought the case in federal court. They sued some of the parties to the arbitration, as well as a newcompany and new individuals, some of whom the cabinet maker had unsuccessfully tried to bring into the arbitration.
The defendants in the new case moved to dismiss and for summary judgment, arguing primarily that res judicata and collateral estoppel precluded the new lawsuit. The district court agreed. It dismissed and grantedsummary judgment to the defendants on most of the claims on those principles and granted summary judgment to the defendants on others because they were barred by the statute of limitations, waiver or laches.
Most of the claims were brought either against the same parties to the arbitration or those in privity with them. And the claims and issues in this lawsuit either were decided in the arbitration or arose from the same factsand thus could have been brought in those proceedings. So, res judicata and collateral estoppel preclude many of Design Gaps’ claims. The court also affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the other issues that were distinct from those that were previously arbitrated. Design Gaps, Inc. v. Distinctive Design & Construction LLC, No. 24-1860, U.S Ct of Appeals (4th Cir. 2025).
Comment: The court does not state how much money was in dispute, but it is difficult to imagine that the amount in dispute could justify the expenses incurred for the years spent arbitrating, litigating and appealing. Generally, arbitration awards sustained by courts in the absence of proof that the arbitrator made a mistake of fact or misapplied the law. In this case the court affirmed the arbitration award and further concluded that the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel protected parties that were not part of the arbitration proceedings.
When ConstructionRisk, LLC reviews design professional contracts, we strike out the arbitration provisions and replace them with litigation of disputes to be held in courts of competent jurisdiction in the state in which the project is located. We believe motions practiced in courts are an important means of cost effectively disposing of issues in dispute. We also believe litigation can be more cost effective, and we like that adverse decisions can be appealed in contrast to how difficult it is to successful appeal from an arbitration decision.
About the author: Article written by J. Kent Holland, Jr., a construction lawyer located in Tysons Corner, Virginia, with a national practice (formerly with Wickwire Gavin, P.C. and now with ConstructionRisk Counsel, PLLC) representing design professionals, contractors and project owners. He is founder and president of a consulting firm, ConstructionRisk, LLC, providing consulting services to owners, design professionals, contractors and attorneys on construction projects. He is publisher of ConstructionRisk Report and may be reached at Kent@ConstructionRisk.com or by calling 703-623-1932. This article is published in ConstructionRisk Report, Vol. 28, No. 2 (March 2026).
Copyright 2026, ConstructionRisk, LLC
Connect