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
Breach of Contract
Construction

Curl v. Swanson, et al.

Published: Jan. 27, 2004 | Result Date: Oct. 10, 2003 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: GIC798885 Verdict –  $0

Judge

Charles R. Hayes

Court

San Diego Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

R. Patrick McCullogh


Defendant

William J. Ward

Brandy P. Tyler


Facts

The plaintiffs hired the defendant to assist with the remodel of their home in Del Mar. No permits were obtained for the remodel work. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was acting as a general contractor, was responsible for obtaining permits and delayed the project. According to the defendant, the defendant was hired as an employee, the plaintiffs did not want to obtain permits, and the project was completed in a timely manner. The plaintiffs alleged breach of contract, negligence, negligence per se, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and made a claim on the contractor's license bond. Before the matter was submitted to the jury, the plaintiffs dismissed their unfair competition, negligence, negligence per se, fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims. The defendant cross-complained for breach of contract, reasonable value, account stated, and open book account. The defendant dismissed the reasonable value, account stated and open book account claims during trial and preceded only on the breach of contract claim.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff demanded C.C.P. Section 998 for $49,000. This was rejected. Before trial, the defendant offered that both parties walk away.

Damages

The plaintiffs alleged damages in excess of $260,000 for diminution in value and defective construction. The plaintiffs also sought cumulative damages in a sum in excess of $500,000 and treble damages in the amount of $780,000, for a total of $1.54 million. At trial, this was reduced to $122,000.

Result

The jury awarded no damages to either party. The defendants have made a motion for costs as the prevailing party pursuant to C.C.P. Section 1032. According to the special jury verdict, the defendant did not breach the contract with the plaintiff. The defendant was acting as an employee rather than a general contractor on the project. The jury also found that the plaintiffs did not breach the contract with the defendant.

Deliberation

six hours

Poll

10-2, 9-3, 11-1

Length

six days


#124445

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

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