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
Breach of Warranty

Candlestick View Condominium Owners Association v. Lindstrom & Son Builders

Published: Oct. 19, 2013 | Result Date: Aug. 5, 2013 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Arbitration –  for Respondent

Court

JAMS


Attorneys

Claimant

Daniel L. Rottinghaus
(Berding & Weil LLP)

Andrew M. Baugh


Respondent

Peter J. Linn
(Bishop Barry)


Facts

Claimant Candlestick View Condominium Owners Association manages a 38-unit condominium development in the Bayview district of San Francisco. The project was originally constructed in 1997.

In 2002, the association filed suit against the developer claiming construction defects existed. The lawsuit was settled in 2006. The following year, the association entered into contract with Lindstrom & Son Builders to perform repairs called out for by the experts in the first litigation. The remediation work began in May 2007 and was completed in October 2007. The contract included almost $900,000 in repairs.

In 2010, the associations' counsel began sending letters to Lindstrom claiming various unspecified defects existed. In 2011, the association made a demand to arbitrate pursuant to the terms of the contract.

The association alleged claims for breach of contract, negligence, breach of warranty and breach of guarantee.

Contentions

CLAIMANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The association claimed that Lindstrom & Sons performed work falling below the standard of care and that had caused damage to the buildings.

RESPONDENT'S CONTENTIONS:
Respondent defended on the grounds that the list of conditions the association were claiming as defective were in fact products' defects or performance issues that had nothing to do with the remediation work; were items that were properly characterized as deferred maintenance issues; and were issues that fell outside of the scope of Lindstrom's contract.

Respondent also argued that many of the claimed defects were in fact defects that had been discovered in the earlier litigation but were being passed off as new damage.

Damages

The association claimed over $1 million in damages.

Result

The arbitrator found in favor of respondent on all causes of action and awarded respondent fees and costs.


#93878

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

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