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.

Construction
Strict Liability
Negligence

Sturm, et al. v. Home Savings and Ahmanson Developments, Inc.

Published: Jan. 17, 1998 | Result Date: Nov. 25, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 160683 –  $2,500,000

Court

Marin Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Michael D. Nelson


Defendant

Robert E. Borton

Richard DeNatale
(Jones Day)

Thomas A. Willis


Experts

Plaintiff

Frank Rollo
(technical)

Chuck Peterson
(technical)

Paul Seidelman
(technical)

Douglas Schultz
(technical)

Tony Eller
(technical)

Michael Yovino-Young
(technical)

Richard Coats
(technical)

Joseph B. Zicherman
(technical)

Thomas Butt
(technical)

Defendant

Richard Tait
(technical)

Arlen Mills
(technical)

Michael Brodsky
(technical)

William K. Houston
(technical)

Raymond LaTona
(technical)

Clark Wallace
(technical)

Paul Saarman
(technical)

Facts

Plaintiffs were the owners of 33 homes, who alleged that defendants, Ahmanson Developments, and its corporate parent, Home Savings of America, defrauded them in the purchase of thier homes by misrepresenting the quality of the houses and concealing defects in the houses and in the underlying soils. Plaintiffs also alleged defects in their windows, roofs, siding, paint, shower tiles, and driveways. The plaintiffs further alleged that lateral and vertical soils movement was creating problems for their homes. The defendants filed cross-complaints against various subcontractors. These cross-claims were settled before. At trial, defendants admitted liability for negligence but denied plaintiffs' fraud claims. The plaintiff brought this constructive defect action against the defendant based on strict liability, negligence and fraud.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiffs made an eve-of-trial settlement demand of $120,000 per house. The defendants made a C.C.P. º998 settlement offer of $57,500 per house; and an eve-of-trial offer of $65,000 per house. The jury awarded damages of approximately $75,000 per house for a total of $2.5 million. Per defendant, several of plaintiffs' awards were below the C.C.P. º998 offer.

Damages

The plaintiffs sought damages in the amount of approximately $200,000 per house, or total of approximately $6.6 million, plus punitive damages. In ruling on defendants' motions in limine, the court excluded claims for emotional distress as non-recoverable in a construction defect case.

Result

At trial, the jury found for plaintiffs on negligence and strict liability, but found for defendants on the fraud claims.

Other Information

The verdict was reached approximately 3+ years after the case was filed.

Deliberation

nine days

Poll

________ (# PLS.)

Length

five months


#87278

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

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