Jennafer Groswith (Partner-Dallas) and Stephen Cord (Associate-Dallas) secured a summary judgment win for their roofing client in a multiparty commercial construction defect case. The Plaintiffs alleged that their surgery center and medical buildings were unusable as a result of a myriad of construction defects which included the TPO membrane roof. Plaintiffs claimed the roof on both buildings needed to be replaced and the General Contractor claimed over $1M in damages was owed by their roofing client. They moved for summary judgment based on the complete lack of evidence that their client violated the standard of care or that the roof was causing any damage. At the last minute, opposing counsel filed a motion to continue the hearing to try to buy more time to drum up evidence. The Court correctly denied opposing counsel’s motion to continue and granted their No Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment.

Taylor Allin (Partner-Phoenix) and Nicholas Merritt (Associate-Phoenix) successfully defended their client, a national home improvement store, in an arbitration involving construction defect and breach of contract allegations. The client contractually arranged for a general contractor and a supplier of roofing materials to replace a private homeowner’s roof. During the delivery of materials, the roof was damaged. While waiting for an assessment of repairs, the roof was further damaged by a rainstorm. The house was not repaired and eventually declared a total loss due to exposure to the elements over a long period of time.  

The homeowners' insurer also brought a subrogation action seeking damages for the cost of the entire home for over $400,000. The homeowners sought damages over $1,000,000. The arbitrator agreed with the mitigation-of-damages argument advanced by Taylor and Nicholas, limiting damages to the original incident and the first rainstorm only. Fault was allocated equally between the delivery company and the general contractor. Additionally, Plaintiffs were not awarded attorneys' fees as they were not the prevailing party.
 

Ryan Williams (Partner-Denver), Edward O’Brien (Partner-Louisville), and Gabrielle Lalonde (Associate-Denver) secured an appellate victory in the Colorado Court of Appeals for Wilson Elser’s client, Jim Black Construction. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the client in its lien foreclosure and breach of contract action against a property owner for whom it provided services. The panel rejected the property owner’s challenges to the validity and amount of the mechanic’s lien and upheld the trial court’s findings that the lien was not knowingly excessive. The court also affirmed the contract judgment, concluding that the parties’ proposal and work authorization are to be construed together and that the record supported the scope of work and the charges awarded. This decision allows Jim Black Construction to proceed toward foreclosure and enforcement upon issuance of the mandate, absent any further review.

Nicholas J. Kauffman (Partner-New York, NY) and Jordan Meisner (Of Counsel-New York, NY) obtained the plaintiff’s voluntary discontinuance (with prejudice) of its construction product liability subrogation action that sought damages against our client rubber company of approximately $7 million plus interest after they aggressively filed a post-answer motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to CPLR §3211(a)(7) and (8) for lack of personal jurisdiction arising from improper service of process that failed to comply with New York’s BCL §306(b)(1). The plaintiff’s alleged damages arose from a leak in a hot water riser at a New York City hotel that contained our client’s elastomeric expansion joint. Nick and Jordan conducted significant due diligence and investigation and were able to proffer evidence to argue that our client was never served with the complaint. They argued that although the body of the complaint referred to our client, the caption named a non-related entity and the plaintiff could only prove service on that entity via the New York Secretary of State. Jordan’s research was critical as he found a recently decided Second Department case that was directly on point and persuaded the plaintiff that it did not have a good-faith basis to continue its action after our motion was fully briefed and submitted.

Peter Catalanotti (Partner-San Francisco, CA) and other members of the San Francisco Design Professionals Practice team secured a win on a summary judgment motion in the Northern District of California in a construction defect case. The plaintiffs/homeowners sued our structural engineer client for construction defects related to a $9 million property in Carmel, California. On behalf of our defendant/ engineer client, Peter and his team moved for summary judgment based on the 10-year statute of repose.  The Court found that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden that the claims against the structural engineer were timely. 

Michael Lowry (Partner-Las Vegas) and Jonathan Pattillo (Associate-Las Vegas) earned a defense decision following a 16-day binding arbitration for Wilson Elser’s client, a landscaping subcontractor. The dispute arose during the construction of a large mobile home park. The general contractor and the owner had a falling out prior to the project's completion, leading to litigation that expanded to include various subcontractors. After the protracted arbitration hearing, the arbitrator agreed with the owner’s assertion that our client breached its subcontract. However, the arbitrator also concurred with Michael and Jonathan’s arguments that no damages were incurred as a result of the breach. This decision resulted in a net win for Wilson Elser’s client.

Ryan Williams (Partner-Denver, CO) and Gabrielle Lalonde (Associate-Denver, CO) obtained a defense verdict following a four-day bench trial in Jefferson County, Colorado. The plaintiff, a homeowner, hired our client, a restoration contractor, to repair his home following an electrical fire. The plaintiff claimed our client promised completion by a certain date, which he denied. Upon initiation of repair work, our client discovered numerous latent conditions, including asbestos and structural defects, which greatly complicated the repair plan and required additional engineering and design efforts. As these initial issues approached resolution, the plaintiff elected to make additional changes to the design of the house, which necessitated further design and engineering changes. Following more than two years of effort by our client, the plaintiff fired him, claiming failure to timely complete the work and defects in the work performed to that point. Claims included negligence, breach of contract and fraud. Ryan and Gabrielle asserted claims arising out of the plaintiff's failure to pay for completed work. Following trial, the court entered an order denying all plaintiff’s claims and awarding our client more than 98 percent of the amount of damages sought and attorneys' fees pursuant to the parties' agreement.