BARRON & ASSOCIATES -- CONSTRUCTION LAW & LITIGATION
Construction Law

At Barron & Associates, we have substantial experience in defending and prosecuting claims related to
construction, and have represented contractors, subcontractors, business owners, property managers,
construction managers, material suppliers, and home owners in a variety of litigated and non-litigated
matters.  Our construction practice includes counseling and legal representation covering the full range
of problems faced by the construction industry and owners of real property. The firm has substantial
experience in litigation involving complex construction contract disputes, public works projects,
catastrophic failures, and defect claims involving commercial and residential structures.

Our services include:


Construction Defect Disputes

From individual homeowners to large commercial projects and apartments, we have represented large
developers, contractors, subcontractors, owners and managers in construction defect disputes.  As
counsel for large developers, we are adept at managing and defending complex construction defect
cases involving hundreds of parties, while ensuring that the risk exposure to our clients is kept to a
minimum.

As counsel for property owners, we have litigated large claims to recover monies for the repairs to large
apartment complexes and commercial structures.  Below are Press Releases from cases in which we
were able to recover significant monies for our clients:
Barron & Associates
1600 South Main Plaza,
Suite 195
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
edb@barronlawoffice.com
P: (925) 937-4400
F: (925) 937-4450

CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS
14 TD 9th 4
SETTLEMENT - APARTMENT COMPLEX BUYER SUES GENERAL CONTRACTOR FOR CONSTRUCTION
DEFECTS AND RESULTING DAMAGE

Construction Defects
Defective Workmanship/Latent Defects

Contra Costa County Superior Court
Cedar Grove Apartments v. Crow Canyon Developers, Ltd., et al. Contra Costa County Superior Court
Action No. MSC04-00712 Trial Judge: Terence Bruiniers Jury Trial Date/Settlement Date: April 3, 2006

SETTLEMENT RESULT ON FIRST DAY OF TRIAL: $12,500,000.00

Counsel
Plaintiff: Jeffery L. Borsuk, Borsuk & Associates, Walnut Creek. Edward D. Barron, Borsuk &
Associates, Walnut Creek.

Defendant
General Contractor: David Strong, Branson, Brinkop, Griffith & Strong, LLP, Redwood City. Defendant

Intervener
Lexington Insurance Company: R. Gregory Amundson, Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP, Costa
Mesa.

Facts/Contentions
According to Plaintiff: The buyers of an apartment complex, who at the time of sale took an assignment
of all contractual indemnity rights, warranties and guarantees from the seller/developer as to the
general contracting entities, claimed that the general contracting entities failed to properly construct the
project pursuant to the project plans and specifications, and applicable building codes, resulting in
substantial construction defects and resulting damages. The plaintiff was Cedar Grove Apartments, a
California Limited Partnership, dba Promontory View. The defendants were Birtcher Construction,
Limited, the general contracting entity, and Lexington in Intervention, its insurance carrier.

Plaintiff alleged that the construction defects resulted in deterioration of key building components, and
permitted substantial water intrusion to occur at the 306 unit apartment complex, requiring removal of
all tenants during repairs from each of the 12 buildings in order to effectuate all necessary repairs,
over an estimated 2 year remediation schedule. Repairs included but were not limited to, removal of all
exterior siding, removal and reflashing of all windows, removal and reconstruction of all exterior
balconies and decks, complete removal and replacement of all exterior walkways and breezeways,
and re-siding of each building following completion of repairs to assure a watertight assembly. Plaintiff
sued defendants for breach of contract, breach of warranty, negligence, and promissory estoppel.
Following extensive destructive testing by both the plaintiff and the defendants, plaintiff produced a
repair scope and estimate in excess of $10.3 million dollars, along with a projected business
interruption loss for the removal of tenants during the remediation process, in an amount in excess of
$5,000,000.00. The damage analysis and repair proposal was prepared by plaintiff's expert, Timothy
Stokes, of Richard Avelar & Associates. Plaintiff established that the various general contractor and
subcontracting entities were responsible for improper flashing and waterproofing of exterior walkways
and breezeways, exterior balconies and decks, and all window assemblies, which resulted in
deteriorated siding, walkways, decks and balconies, all of which permitted water intrusion into the
apartment's wall cavities. The defense produced a scope of repair and estimate in the approximate
amount of $5.4 million, along with an estimated business interruption loss of under $400,000.00,
based on the contention that all repairs could be effectuated without removal of any tenants. The
general contracting defendants then pursued cross-complaints against the potentially responsible
subcontractors. The underlying litigation was overseen and under the supervision of Special Master
Tom Castle, and after numerous mediations, the defense only jointly offered $2.3 million dollars in
settlement of the case. Thereafter, depositions of all parties and expert witnesses were undertaken for
in excess of 7 months in preparation for jury trial. Prior to trial, plaintiff settled with the design
professionals for the total sum of $500,000.00. On the day before trial was to commence, the general
contracting defendants and Lexington in Intervention settled for the total sum of $11 million. On the first
day of trial, immediately prior to selection of a jury, the remaining defendant settled for an additional $1
million, for a cumulative recovery of $12.5 million dollars.

Claimed Injuries
NA

Claim Damages
According to plaintiff, in excess of $10.3 million dollars in remediation costs, and estimated business
interruption losses in excess of $5 million. According to the defense, approximately $5.4 million dollars
in remediation costs, and less than $400,000.00 in estimated business interruption losses.

Settlement Discussions
According to Plaintiff: The defense offered $2.3 million dollars cumulatively prior to trial preparation.
Plaintiff demanded $12.5 million dollars. Plaintiff accepted $500,000.00 from the design professionals
prior to trial. Plaintiff accepted $11 million from the general contracting entities the day before trial, and
an additional $1 million from the remaining defendant on the first day of trial, for a total recovery of
$12.5 million dollars.

Experts
For Plaintiff: Timothy Stokes of Richard Avelar & Associates, Oakland.
For Defendants: Fred Walovich + Associates, Pleasanton.

***********************************************************************************************************
OCTOBER 15, 2001 - VOL. 4 NO. 42
CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS
42 TD 2
SETTLEMENT-Apartment complex buyers sue sellers for failure to disclose construction defects and
resulting damage.
Construction Defects
Defective Workmanship/Latent Defect/Roofing
Contracts
Miscellaneous/Warranty-Implied
Alameda County Superior Court

Quail Hill Apartments v. SummerHill Castro Valley Associates,
No. H2084426, Hayward. Settlement date: 3/19/2001.
Settlement Result: $3,600,000

Counsel
Plaintiff: Jeffery L. Borsuk, Borsuk & Associates, Walnut Creek.
Edward D. Barron, Borsuk & Associates, Walnut Creek.
Defendant: S. Mitchell Kaplan, Gordon & Rees, San Francisco.

Facts/Contentions
According to plaintiff: The buyers of an apartment complex claimed that the sellers of the property failed
to disclose known constructions defects and damage. The plaintiff was Quail Hill Apartments L.L.C. in
Castro Valley. The defendants were SummerHill Castro Valley Associates, developer of the complex,
and numerous subcontractors. Plaintiff alleged that the construction defects resulted in deterioration of
key building components and permitted substantial mold, dry rot and water intrusion to occur at the
96-unit apartment complex. Plaintiff purchased the property from defendant in 1991. However,
defendant failed to disclose the construction defects and significant water intrusion issues, and the
damage from the water intrusion was not discovered until 1999. As a result, the plaintiff sued
defendants for negligence, strict liability, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of
implied warranty, concealment, misrepresentation and damages.

After an initial settlement offer by the defense of approximately $1 million and, following intensive
destructive testing and inspection of the property, in addition to numerous mediations under the
supervision of Special Master John Griffiths, defendant developer ultimately accepted plaintiff's
long-standing offer to settle for $3.6 million immediately before the trial was scheduled to commence.
The settlement offer was based, in part, on a damage analysis and repair proposal prepared by
plaintiff's expert, Richard Avelar. Plaintiff had previously established that various subcontractors and
general contractor/developer were responsible for improper flashing and waterproofing of exterior
walkways and entryways that deteriorated the walkways and permitted water intrusion into the
apartments' wall cavities. The significant water intrusion permitted substantial mold growth and dry rot
in both the walkways and apartments, as a result of which several tenants were evacuated. Mold
testing, including air samples and tape lifts, verified several types of mold in the buildings, most of
which were harmful to residents, and required substantial remediation of the apartments and
walkways, including over $750,000 in mold abatement procedures following correction of the
construction deficiencies. Plaintiff is currently in the process of repairing the property.

Claimed Injuries
NA
Claimed Damages
Not reported.
Settlement Discussions
According to plaintiff: Demand: Not reported. Offer:Initial
offer approximately $1,000,000; $3,600,000 after discovery.
Experts
Not reported.

These materials have been prepared by Barron & Associates for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. You should not act upon this
information without seeking professional legal counsel. © Copyright 2011 Barron & Associates. All rights reserved.