This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

CONFIDENTIAL

Oct. 7, 1995

Construction
Condominium Project

Confidential

Settlement –  $967,500

Court

L.A. Superior Van Nuys


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Alan I. Schimmel
(Schimmel & Parks APLC)

David A. Loewenthal


Defendant

Eddy S. Feldman

Gordon F. Sausser

John Koslov

I. David Small

William C. Howison

Carrin A. Gidekel


Experts

Plaintiff

Edward Panasci
(technical)

Defendant

Edward D. Martinet II
(technical)

Facts

In 1988 through 1989, Defendants developer, general contractor, design professionals, and subcontractors completed a condominium project consisting of 28 town houses. The price per unit was approximately $120,000. Occupancy commenced approximately 1989. Since the project had been completed during the Southern California Drought, it experienced very little rainfall during the first few years. Commencing in the early 1990's, the units began to experience leaks through roofs, windows, doors, stucco, and decks, during the first heavy rains. Though the developer attempted to make certain minimal repairs to the project, such repairs were ineffective; therefore, the association commenced litigation against Defendants involved in the overall waterproofing system of this project.

Settlement Discussions

Plaintiff contends it demanded $1,200,000 and Defendants offered $450,000.

Damages

Plaintiff claimed that: (1) roof membrane was improperly installed, allowing water intrusion to the units; (2) waterproofing paper below the stucco was reversed, allowing water to drain into the walls as opposed to outside of the building; (3) sheet metal flashing was either installed improperly or missing in critical areas, such as around parapet walls, transitions between stucco and roof membrane, allowing water intrusion; and (4) drainage around the buildings was either poorly constructed or omitted, thus allowing substantial water ponding in planter areas directly adjacent to units. Plaintiff estimated repair costs at $1,200,000; Defendants estimated repair costs at $450,000 to $600,000.


#109093

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390