 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Verdicts / Settlements - PlaintiffsBreach of Contract
CASE TYPE: CONTRACTS, Breach of Contract
VERDICT: $644,274, total (plus $249,000 prejudgment interest, and $408,000 in attorney fees). No recovery on cross-complaint. CASE / NUMBER: Hillcrest-Thousand Oaks v. DSD Construction and Insurance Company of the West/ SC014580. COURT DATE: Ventura Superior / Feb. 4, 2000. JUDGE: Hon. Glen M. Reiser, Dept. 3. ATTORNEYS: Plaintiff- George Knopfler, Robert Nation ( Knopfler & Robertson , Woodland Hills). Cross-complainant- Darryl J. Horowitt ( Coleman & Horowitt LLP, Fresno) for DSD Construction. Defendant- Alan Simpson (Marderosian, Oren & Paboojian, Fresno) for DSD Construction; Robert Iafe (Ravin Taylor, San Diego) for Insurance Company of the West; William Potter (San Diego) for Insurance Company of the West. TECHNICAL EXPERTS: Plaintiff- Kevin V. Keegan, civil engineer , Thousand Oaks. Defendant- Rex T. Edmonds, construction claims consultant, San Marcos; Stephen T. Mann, civil engineer, Chatsworth; Michael T. Chulak, real estate valuation, Calabasas. FactsPlaintiff Hillcrest, as owner-developer of a 45-unit town home project, entered into a contract with a general engineering contractor, DSD Construction, to perform all grading and site improvement work (e.g. sewer, water, asphalt, paving, curb, gutter, drainage, etc..) The contract was bounded by Insurance Company of the West ( ICW). PlaintiffThe plaintiff contended that DSD was slow to perform, and ultimately failed to perform, substantial parts of the work. Some of the work had to be redone by others. Damages include costs to complete repairs, and delay damages. DefendantDSD contended that they performed the work required by the contract. Any delay or non-performance was due to the need to import dirt to the site in order to proceed with the work, and payment issues relating to claimed extra work. Jury Trial:Length, 14 days; Deliberation: 10 hours. Other Information:DSD's cross-complaint was dismissed for failure to comply with the contractors license statute. DSD and ICW filed a notice of appeal. DSD's motion for new trial was denied. DSD and ICW filed a notice of appeal. DSD's motion for new trial was denied. |