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.

Breach of Contract
Construction
Public Works

Colich & Sons v. City of Norco

Published: Mar. 12, 1994 | Result Date: Feb. 23, 1994 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 220489 –  $3,900,000

Judge

E. Michael Kaiser

Court

Riverside Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Bernard S. Kamine

Joseph A. Miller
(Monteleone & McCrory LLP)


Defendant

John W. Marshall


Experts

Plaintiff

Joe A. Valverde
(technical)

George Ossman III
(technical)

James H. Creager
(technical)

Russell S. Padia
(technical)

Richard H. Wainer
(technical)

Fred Y.M. Chen
(technical)

Michael J. Miller
(technical)

Thomas M. Dawes
(technical)

Mark Butier
(technical)

Weston S. Pringle
(technical)

John Berton
(technical)

Defendant

Richard E. Tasker
(technical)

William D. Gardner
(technical)

Charlie F. Bowls
(technical)

Jon B. Sebba
(technical)

Facts

From October 1989 through October of 1990, the Defendant City of Norco allegedly breached the public works contract for the installation of a sewer system by disrupting and delaying the Plaintiff contractor's performance by refusing to recognize changed conditions and by forcing the contractor to do extra work. The Defendant city had hired a new engineer between the time of the bid and the start of the work. Plaintiff alleged this engineer severely misconstrued the construction specifications, resulting in the breach (disputed by Defendants). The contractor was Plaintiff Colich & Sons (JV). The contract price was $6,000,000; and the work was supposed to have been completed in one year. However, it allegedly cost the contractor nearly double the original bid and took almost 2 years to complete.

Settlement Discussions

Plaintiffs contend their initial demand was $10,000,000 and Defendants initially offered $200,000. Defendants contend Plaintiff's initial demand was in excess of $10,000,000.

Damages

Added costs for labor, services, equipment, and materials; additional supervision and jobsite overhead expense; unabsorbed home-office overhead expense; lost profits -- estimated at $4,000,000 (per Plaintiffs) -- plus prejudgment interest.

Other Information

Although it is our policy to maintain confidentiality of the case I.D. in settlement reporting, we have made an exception here due to media coverage since 1991.


#77791

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

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