We are pleased to congratulate Dan Levin and George Truitt on a very successful verdict in a three (3) week construction defect jury trial in Miami. The Plaintiff, a luxury high rise condominium association in the Williams Island section of Aventura, brought suit against the General Contractor and CSK’s client, a high performance coating applicator, related to blistering and corrosion of a new aluminum and glass railing system on a 30-story condominium building. The Plaintiff alleged that, within two (2) years of coating and installing the railings as part of a $1.7 million restoration project, 90% of the railings were blistering and corroding.
The Plaintiff sued the General Contractor for Breach of Contract and Breach of Implied Warranty and also sued CSK’s client for breach of a 20-year limited express warranty. The General Contractor also brought a crossclaim against CSK’s client for Breach of Contract, Breach of Express Warranty, and Common Law Indemnification. The Plaintiff sought approximately $5.6 million against both the General Contractor and CSK’s client – representing costs associated with removal and replacement of all the balcony railings and upgraded glass resulting from a change in the Florida Building Code. Both the Plaintiff and General Contractor argued to the jury that the damages resulted solely from the defective coating application process by CSK’s client. CSK’s client argued that the damages were the result of the General Contractor’s deviations from the engineer’s specifications and defects in the fabrication and installation of the railings.
After weeks of the Plaintiff and the General Contractor pointing the finger at CSK’s client, the jury returned a verdict as follows:
1. In favor of the Plaintiff against the General Contractor for approximately $4 million in damages.
2. In favor of CSK’s client against the Plaintiff by awarding $0 in damages.
3. In favor of the General Contractor on its cross claim against CSK’s client for approximately $450,000.
With an expired Proposal for Settlement to the Plaintiff, CSK’s client is likely to be awarded its attorneys’ fees and costs against the Plaintiff. The demand against CSK’s client never fell below the total costs associated with removal and replacement of the entire railing system. Congratulations to Dan and George on a hard fought victory.