Confidential
Settlement – $1,025,000Judge
Court
Clark County District, Nevada
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Al Stilly
(technical)
William W. Palmer
(Palmer Law Group PLC)
(technical)
Jack Woodcock
(technical)
Brian Newton
(technical)
Mike Forrest
(technical)
Don Sainsbary
(technical)
Scott Dugan
(technical)
George Beckwith
(technical)
Mark Rowley
(technical)
Ken Tholin
(technical)
Defendant
Jack Eagen
(technical)
K. Don Dunn
(technical)
G. David Robertson
(technical)
Facts
The plaintiffs purchased a custom lot from the defendant developers in 1988. The lot is situated on the tenth tee of Canyon Gate Country Club. The custom lot consists of approximately 10 feet of fill. The lot was physically constructed by the defendant builder. The defendant engineering company was responsible for oversight of the lot's construction. In early 1992, the plaintiffs' residence, valued in excess of $1 million, was completed. Within several weeks, the residence began to show signs of distress. Thereafter, destructive testing was conducted showing that the average compaction of the lot was approximately 86 percent. This was below the minimal 90 percent standard. Many of the improvements began to show signs of distress. The pool and water features were unusable not long after it was filled. The plaintiffs brought this action against the defendants for all damages resulting from the improperly compacted soils. The defendant builder performed the physical construction of the lot. The defendant engineering company was responsible for engineering oversight for the lot construction. The builder and engineering company assumed liability for the other named defendants (the developers).
Settlement Discussions
The settlement discussions were not disclosed.
Damages
The plaintiffs sought and recovered damages inclusive of costs of repair and diminution in value of the property subsequent to repairs being made.
Other Information
In April 1996, the defendant engineering company entered into a good faith settlement with the plaintiffs whereupon the engineering company paid the plaintiffs $375,000. The defendant builder made an offer of judgment of an additional $50,000. The plaintiffs offered to take judgment for an additional $400,000. Both offers were rejected. The parties stipulated to waive the jury and proceed to trial before Judge Jack Lehman. The trial lasted 11 days. The court found total damages in the amount of $844,000. Damages included $250,000 for diminution in value/stigma damages attaching to the plaintiffs' property. Judgment for $844,000, plus prejudgment interest was entered on Nov. 19, 1996. On Dec. 3, 1996, a final settlement was reached whereupon defendant builder paid the plaintiffs an additional $650,000 for a total recovery of $1,025,000.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390