Confidential
Settlement – $7,906,250Judge
Court
Clark County District, Nevada
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Charles Osterman
(technical)
James I. Montgomery Jr.
(technical)
Yehuda Wolfson
(technical)
Richard Kackstetter
(technical)
Brian Jeff Jeff Grill
(technical)
Defendant
Daniel Chudnovsky
(technical)
John Premo
(technical)
Michael L. Kelly
(Kirtland & Packard LLP)
(technical)
Matti J. Prabhu
(technical)
G. Bradley Karr
(technical)
Michael Solendar
(technical)
Facts
The plaintiffs consisted of a number of individuals who had an ownership interest in condominium units at a large condominium project located in Laughlin, Nevada. The condominium project was comprised of 243 residential units which plaintiffs alleged suffered from faulty roofs which permitted water intrusion and water damage into the units. Plaintiffs also claimed that the condominiums were not structurally sound in that they lacked adequate structural "hold downs" and shear valve due to violations of applicable building codes and standards of care in the construction industry. Plaintiffs further alleged that numerous other construction defects were present at the development. The defendants, the developer and general contractor, denied that they designed, made or sold condominiums with construction defects. The defendants further claimed several legal defenses to the plaintiffs' claims, including the statute of limitations. Plaintiffs moved for a class certification which was granted on Oct. 8, 1996. Plaintiffs brought their claim against defendants alleging negligence and strict liability against the defendant developer and general contractor and breach of express and implied warranty claims against the defendant developer. Defendants sought reimbursement from plaintiffs for attorney fees, costs and expenses to defend the lawsuit. After plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint for damages, the defendant general contractor named as third-party defendants, over 30 subcontractors who performed services or supplied materials to the condominium project.
Settlement Discussions
Five days prior to commencement of trial, a proposed settlement agreement was entered into between plaintiffs and defendants, general contractor and developer, and 29 of the 34 defendant subcontractors. The agreement provided that the settling defendants pay to plaintiffs the total sum of $5,510,000. The defendants developer and general contractor assigned all of their claims against the remaining parties to the plaintiffs. On the eve of trial, a second settlement agreement was entered into between plaintiffs and four of the remaining five defendant subcontractors (Second Settling Defendants). The second agreement provided that the plaintiffs would receive an additional total cash settlement of $2,396,250 from the Second Settling defendants. Also included in the second settlement agreement were two stipulated judgments entered in favor of plaintiffs against two of the Second Settling defendants collectively amounting to ($5,000,000). Plaintiffs entered into covenants not to execute against the defendants and reserved their right to proceed against the insurance companies for the aforementioned Second Settling defendants to recover the stipulated judgment amounts.
Damages
___________________ ??
Result
$5,510,000 by defendants general contractor and developer and 29 defendant subcontractors, plus assignment of defendants claims; $2,396,250 by four defendant subcontractors; $5 million by 2 defendant subcontractors (subject to covenant not to execute.
Other Information
THE RESULT: Trial commenced on Sept. 3, 1997 against the sole remaining defendant, the geotechnical/soils engineer at the condominium project. After a 3 1/2 day jury trial, class counsel obtained a jury verdict in the amount of $379,000. The jury found that the defendant geotechnical soils engineer was negligent in its role of designing and testing the soil below the asphalt. Per defendant soils engineer, the judge would not allow evidence as to consequential damages, and the case went to the jury on a theory that the plaintiffs only had to prove that the value of subsoil was less than contained in the geotechnical/soils engineers' report to find the defendant negligent. The judgment in favor of plaintiffs against the defendant soils engineer was adjusted to $184,691.46 without costs and attorney fees.
Poll
8-0
Length
3+ days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390