Quail Creek La Paz Condominium Association v. Sterling Homes Corporation, La Paz Associates, and La Paz Investments, Inc., et al.
Published: Aug. 27, 1994 | Result Date: Aug. 9, 1994 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 626339 – $4,911,600
Judge
Court
Orange Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
John J. Perlstein
(Law Office of John J. Perlstein)
Experts
Plaintiff
Paul E. Heidenreich
(Huskinson, Brown & Heidenreich LLP)
(technical)
Kevin Harper
(technical)
Mark Wisniewski
(technical)
Steve Axten
(technical)
Mark Riches
(technical)
Ray Steele
(technical)
Steve Wong
(technical)
George Swink
(technical)
John Leach
(technical)
Luke Sabala
(technical)
Eugene C. DeCarlo
(technical)
Carl H. Josephson
(technical)
Lucien Morin
(technical)
Bill Paquette
(technical)
Martin Kromer
(technical)
Jeff Weigle
(technical)
Peter M. Jones
(technical)
Mark LaMunyon
(technical)
Jim Lezinski
(technical)
Don Equitz
(technical)
Chuck Hannahan
(technical)
Steven C. Ball
(technical)
Mitch Collins
(technical)
Gregory W. Axten
(technical)
Kevin Franklin
(technical)
Curtis G. Odom
(technical)
Gerald Peckham
(technical)
Defendant
William J. Sevier
(technical)
Christopher A. Allen
(technical)
Donald Waller
(technical)
Robert E. Dyson
(technical)
Avram Ninyo
(technical)
James Shrope
(technical)
James Bachofer
(technical)
Facts
Defendants were the developer and general contractor of a 306-unit condominium project located in Laguna Hills. The construction took place during 1981-82. Plaintiff was the homeowners' association. Plaintiff asserted causes of action for strict liability, breach of express and implied warranties, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence. The fraud and breach of fiduciary duty causes of action were stricken from the case by the Court's granting Defendant's pretrial motions on the grounds that the association lacked standing to prosecute the causes of action. Prior to jury instructions, Plaintiff dismissed the remaining causes of action with the exception of strict liability. Defendants cross-complained against 20 subcontractors and design professionals (rights of contractual and equitable indemnity); the cross-complaint was severed for trial. At the conclusion of the trial of the main action, 5 Cross-defendants remained after 15 had settled with the Defendants.
Settlement Discussions
Defendants contend they made a global package offer of $7,000,000; and Plaintiff demanded in excess of $10,000,000. Plaintiff denies it made a settlement demand in excess of $10,000,000 and contends it made a settlement demand for $4,650,000 which was withdrawn before trial; and that Defendants made the following offers: $1,000,000 offer after mediation; a 998 offer of $3,000,000; $5,000,000 immediately before trial; and a global package during trial of $7,000,000 which was withdrawn before the verdict; also, Plaintiff made no counter-demands to the $3,000,000; $5,000,000 and $7,000,000 offers.
Damages
The primary claim of Plaintiff was that the post-tension building slabs were defectively designed for the soil conditions present at the site and needed to be removed and replaced, in their entirety, with new slabs. Plaintiff argued that the following components were defective: building slabs; decks; exterior stairs; carports; equipment enclosures; water feature bridges; roofs; chimneys; patio slabs; pool decks; concrete walkways; drainage; aluminum sliding glass doors; tennis courts; landscaping; irrigation; site lighting; lakes and streams; plumbing; stucco; soils; and asphalt paving. Plaintiff estimated the cost to repair to range from $30-40,000,000 and asked the jury to award $26,897,243. Defendants contended that the post-tension slabs were not defective, but that the soils at the complex were improperly compacted which led to damage to the interiors and exteriors of the buildings, including the slabs; that the proper method to repair the buildings was not to remove the slabs, but to jack and level the slabs which needed to be re-leveled, and to control the water in and around the buildings so that excess moisture would not be introduced into the expansive soils at the site. Defendants admitted that the decks, stairs, equipment enclosures, roofs, pool decks, landscaping, and soils were defective. Defendants claimed that the reasonable cost to repair the defects that did exist was $4,965,000.
Result
The jury found that there were no defects in the building slabs, but that the soils were defective. The jury further found that the landscape claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
Other Information
Defendants settled (prior to or during trial) with the 15 of the Cross-defendants, collecting a total of $2,300,000 from these subcontractors.
Deliberation
5.5 days
Poll
not taken
Length
6 weeks
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390