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.

Contracts
Construction Contract
Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Picerne Construction Corporation v. Campbell Corners Limited Partnership, Castellino Villas

Published: May 15, 2010 | Result Date: Oct. 27, 2009 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 34-2009-00045395 Arbitration –  $4,134,570

Court

Sacramento Superior


Attorneys

Claimant

Scott E. Hennigh
(Hanson Bridgett LLP)

Meredith A. Jones-McKeown
(Perkins Coie LLP)


Respondent

James Andrew Melino

Roger Hughes

Jerome B. Falk Jr.
(Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP)


Facts

Defendants Campbell Corners Limited Partnership and Castellino Villas developed two apartment complexes constructed by plaintiff Picerne Construction Corp. Picerne filed suit after purportedly not receiving payment for it's work.

Campbell and Castellino filed a separate suit for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and faiCampbell and Castellino filed a separate suit for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, contractual indemnity, disgorgement, breach of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and declaratory relief, seeking in excess of $30 million in damages.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Picerne claimed that Campbell and Castellino wrongfully withheld progress and retention payments from Picerne after the two apartment complexes Picerne constructed did not complete on time. Picerne sought payment under the contract, extended general conditions due to owner delay, prompt payment penalties, and damages due to the owner's alleged secret efforts to sell the apartment complexes as condominiums in violation of the parties' contract.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Campbell and Castellino argued that Picerne was late in completing the projects and this caused damage to them. They further contended that, during the process, in the rainy season of 2006, the construction for the Castellino Villas project was heavily damaged. The owner, who withheld progress and retention payments as liquidated damages, argued that the contractor had fraudulently misrepresented the project schedule, and impacted project financing.

Result

The arbitration panel awarded Picerne $4,134,574.34 and additional equitable relief. As against Campbell, Picerne was awarded contract damages of $708,955 and prompt payment penalties of $173,902. As against Castellino, Picerne was awarded contract damages of $1,776,149 and prompt payment penalties of $123,914. As against Campbell and Castellino jointly, Picerne was awarded $1,504,633 in litigation fees and expenses and Castellino and Campbell Corners were required to provide Picerne with a retroactive insurance policy valued at approximately $635,000 as well as other declaratory relief. The court affirmed the award.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Oct. 10, 2006.


#120318

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

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