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. 24, 1998

Construction
Negligent Construction
Condominium Complex

Confidential

Settlement –  $6,882,000

Judge

Mark C. Gibbons

Mediator

Bruce A. Edwards

Court

Clark County District, Nevada


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Scott K. Canepa


Defendant

David S. Lee


Experts

Plaintiff

Stanley C. Livingston
(technical)

Milton N. Burgess
(technical)

Michael D. Romanowski
(technical)

John J. Van Houten
(technical)

Valentine S. Hoy
(technical)

James Lee Bynum
(technical)

Harry A. MacDonald
(technical)

Salar Dehbozorgi
(technical)

H. Fred Uttke II
(technical)

Brian Jeff Jeff Grill
(technical)

Defendant

Avram Ninyo
(technical)

John Premo
(technical)

Peter Cruz
(technical)

Thaumas P. Ehr
(technical)

Daniel Chudnovsky
(technical)

Bruce D. Bowman
(technical)

Matti J. Prabhu
(technical)

John Hammond
(technical)

Facts

Plaintiff homeowners association filed suit on behalf of 312 condominium unit owners against the developer and general contractor of the condominium complex alleging numerous and pervasive construction defects. The developer and the general contractor neither of which performed any of the actual construction of the complex, sued the subcontractors which built the complex for indemnity and contribution. Once discovery established the inability of the general contractor to satisfy a potential judgment in the amount of plaintiffs' unburdened cost of repair, plaintiffs sought and were granted leave to sue the subcontractors directly. The plaintiffs then presented the general contractor with a policy limits settlement demand against expert repair estimates well in excess of available coverage. The demand was eventually accepted and each of the insurers agreed to pay their entire policy limits for a combined total of $6,882,000, as well as an assignment of indemnity rights against the subcontractors and other third parties in consideration for a complete release of the general contractor. Plaintiffs continue to prosecute their action against the developer and subcontractors and to enforce the general contractor's rights of contractual indemnity against those same subcontractors. The plaintiffs brought this action against the defendants based on negligence, breach of warranty and negligent misrepresentation among other theories of recovery.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiffs made a settlement demand for $____________. The defendants made an offer of $__________.

Other Information

The settlement was reached approximately two years and five months after the case was filed. Several mediations were held before Bruce Edwards of JAMS, resulting in the reported settlement.


#112504

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

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