Montgomery Washington Tower Association v. Crow-Spieker No. 99; Crow-Spieker No. 100; Kaplan/McLaughlin Diaz; Williams & Burrows, Inc.; Fidelity Roof Company; ABCO Waterproofing Company; Cobbledick-Kibbe; AHT Architects / 957555.
Published: Jul. 11, 1998 | Result Date: Apr. 12, 1998 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 957555 Verdict – $1,183,570
Judge
Court
San Francisco Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
David L. Strong
(Menekshe Law Firm)
Richard J. Finn
(Burnham Brown)
Bradley A. Bening
(Davis, Bengtson & Young)
Paul B. Lahaderne
(Sedgwick LLP)
Maria J. Giardina
(Troutman Sanders LLP)
Lisa M. Cappelluti
(Gordon & Rees LLP)
Experts
Plaintiff
Jeffrey T. Chen
(Social Security Administration)
(technical)
Stephen Saarman
(technical)
John P. Monteverdi
(technical)
Robert L. Schwein
(technical)
Randy Sugarman
(technical)
Thomas K. Butt
(technical)
Arlen Mills
(technical)
Arthur Zigas
(technical)
Roy Helsing
(technical)
Defendant
Christopher R. Nelson
(technical)
Walter Ricci
(technical)
Frank Giannini
(technical)
Sven Thomasen
(technical)
Sidney Friedman
(technical)
Josef Kneppers
(technical)
Paul Foley
(technical)
Ted Hart
(technical)
Harold Harlan III
(technical)
Michael D. Hirsch
(technical)
Carolyn L. Searls
(technical)
Facts
Plaintiff Montgomery Washington Tower Association sued defendants developer, contractors and subcontractors Crow-Spieker No. 99, Crow-Spieker No. 100, Kaplan/McLaughlin/Diaz, Williams & Burrows, Inc., Fidelity Roof Company, ABCO Waterproofing Company, Cobbledick-Kibbe and AHT Architects for damages relating to construction defects in the Montgomery Washington Towers, a 26-story, multi-use structure in San Francisco. The upper six stories of the building consisted of "high-end" condominiums. The building was set back, and had unique design features, including seven solariums, three large penthouse decks with windscreens on the 26th floor, a pool deck with outdoor lap pool and glass windscreens on the 20th floor, and 40 individual balcony decks with glass guardrails located over living space. All decks were designed as an inverted roof membrane assembly (IRMA), consisting of waterproof membrane and related flashings over a concrete slab, insulation board, and a gravel bed with travertine pavers. The building exterior consisted of travertine stone attached to precast concrete panels, with sealant at the panel-to-panel and panel-to-window/door joints at the outboard face of the travertine. The heating/air conditioning/ventilating system consisted of separate heat pumps and overhead ducting in the individual units that was connected to a common cooling tower. The system provided for heating, and could also be used provide some cooling capacity. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendants based on strict liability, breach of implied warranty, breach of fidiciary duty and negligence.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff made a settlement demand for $6,029,702. The defendants made a combined offer of $2.845 million (not including Kaplan/McLaughlin/Diaz) with, per plaintiff, an indication that more could be raised. Kaplan/McLaughlin/Diaz offered $400,000.
Damages
The plaintiff claimed $6,442,543 in damages.
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately four years after the case was filed. Numerous settlement conferences were held before John R. Griffiths as Special Master. The plaintiff settled with other defendants before trial for a total of $135,000, for which the court granted an offset. After the offset for the plaintiff's comparative fault, the net award was $987,567. POST-TRIAL MOTIONS: The plaintiff's motions for new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict were denied.
Deliberation
10 days
Poll
varied
Length
four months
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390