Pinnacle Flooring Solutions v. Premier Homes Group

Summary

The Supreme Court of Virginia held that Premier Homes Group's counterclaim did not comply with Rule 3:25(b) because its demand for attorney fees did not affirmatively identify the basis for recovery — it neither cited Section 8(b) of the subcontracts nor mentioned the subcontracts at all. The Court clarified that Rule 3:25(b) is a pleading requirement rather than a notice requirement, so Pinnacle's actual or constructive notice of the fee basis, whether from Premier's emails or from the subcontracts' incorporation by reference, could not cure the defect; incorporation by reference, and even physical attachment alone, would be insufficient. The Court distinguished its Lawlor precedent because Premier never sought leave to amend under Rule 1:8, the only cure for the waiver Rule 3:25(c) imposes. The Court therefore reversed the Court of Appeals and made final the trial court's denial of Premier's fee request.