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 Defect

Mary Bradford v. Ideal Plumbing, William G. Zaiss, Dan Zaiss

Published: Nov. 4, 2003 | Result Date: May 22, 2003 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 8304946 Verdict –  $11,500

Judge

Carl W. Morris

Court

Alameda Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

John R. Browne III


Defendant

Joseph J. Minioza


Experts

Plaintiff

Eric Kessel
(medical)

Andrew Weber
(technical)

Defendant

Mark Hunter
(technical)

Robert T. Levine
(medical)

Facts

Plaintiff Mary Bradford contracted with defendant Ideal Plumbing in the summer of 1998 to do plumbing remodel of her home in Castro Valley. William Zaiss was the owner of the company and Dan Zaiss, his brother, was the head plumbing contractor on the job. The plaintiff claimed that there were problems with their work; they removed sheetrock and did not replace it; dug a trench in her yard and did not clean it up; abandoned the project before it was completely finished and violated numerous building codes. The plaintiff also claimed Dan Zaiss intentionally misrepresented to her that he was a licensed contractor, that he had a physical office in Castro Valley and was the owner of the company. She alleged that either William or Dan Zaiss left 10 to 12 messages on her answering machine, threatening to file a mechanics lien and lawsuit against her. They did so intentionally and recklessly with the knowledge that she was undergoing psychological treatment and had been on leave from work because of major depression.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff made a C.C.P. Section 998 demand of $40,000; the defendants offered $18,000.

Damages

$15,000 in property damage; $150,000 in general damages and $250,000 in punitive damages.

Result

The jury found for plaintiff on the breach of contract and negligence claims. The plaintiff was awarded $11,500 for property damage against all defendants jointly and severally. The jury found for defendants on the claims of fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Other Information

The plaintiff made post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict for a new trial and for attorney fees as the prevailing party. The defendant made a cross-motion for attorney fees as per C.C.P. Section 998. The plaintiff filed a bankruptcy (Chapter 7) and the post-trial motions have been taken off calendar because of the bankruptcy automatic stay order. The defendants filed a motion for nonsuit on all causes of action. The court denied all the motions except for the punitive damages.

Deliberation

four hours

Poll

12-0

Length

six days


#83721

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

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