Skane Wilcox has been successfully defending general contractors, subcontractors and construction managers for many years. In particular, we represent all subcontractor trades and are knowledgeable how each trade affects the other in the construction of residential and commercial properties. We have handled cases that involve tract homes, high-end single family homes, apartment buildings, condominiums, and small and large commercial properties. Although we attempt to seek a resolution for each of our clients before trial, we are experienced construction defect trial lawyers who are ready to take our client’s case to trial if necessary.
Some Results from our Attorneys
*** Our attorneys obtained a defense verdict in a multi-million dollar construction defect case venued in Orange County. The case involved a homeowner, the general subcontractor, the architect and ten subcontractors, including our client. Our client performed the roofing and waterproofing work at the custom residential project, valued at over $8 million. The alleged defects against our client focused on defective roof work and water intrusion from the decks. The plaintiff asked for $1 million in damages and allocated in his closing argument the largest percentage to our client. Following the defense verdict for our client, we sought our costs from the plaintiff.
*** Our attorneys successfully achieved a defense jury verdict in an action in which the plaintiff was seeking in excess of $600,000.00 in damages against our general contractor client. The plaintiff's claims arose out of repair work performed at his residence in order to repair damage caused by a large tree falling during a storm on to a portion of the plaintiff's deck and koi pond. The plaintiff was seeking to recover on a negligence claim against the general contractor in relation to his bad faith claim against the insurer defendant. However, our attorneys were able to defeat this claim by motion in limine. The only remaining claim against the client was for breach of contract, in which the plaintiff claimed the contract required the use of a structural engineer. Our attorneys were able to defeat this claim by establishing that the terms of the contract did not require a structural engineer, our client did not breach the contract, and even if a breach could have been established the plaintiff suffered no damage as a result. Additionally, our attorneys obtained a judgment against the plaintiff in excess of $22,000.00.
*** Our attorneys handled a contentious construction defect case concerning a $20 million single family custom home. We represented a total of four client-contractors in this litigation. For three of our client-contractors we obtained dismissals in exchange for waivers of costs, including the window manufacturer. We saved the insurer the settlement authority they provided to us and pushed for a waiver of costs. For the fourth client-contractor, we settled for only $1,200. Our clients were the very few in the case who were dismissed for waivers of costs.
*** In this highly contentious, 5 year old litigation, which recently settled for $2,010,000, we received dismissals for two client-contractors for the collective total of $32,000. The first move in our strategy was to establish that neither plaintiffs nor developer had any evidence of negligence against our clients. During this process, we elicited testimony from the plaintiffs’ expert that the defective construction was attributable to another contractor. The expert’s lack of knowledge as to whose scope of work he was testifying greatly damaged his credibility, not only as to his opinions about the insured’s work, but also to that of other subcontractors’ work. The second move was successfully blocking both developer’s and plaintiffs’ access to our clients’ experts for depositions. Both developer and plaintiffs noticed the experts’ depositions after the discovery cutoff, said depositions necessary for the case against our clients. Since we successfully elicited testimony from both plaintiffs’ and developer’s experts that eviscerated any case said parties had against our clients, their only recourse was to elicit testimony from our clients’ experts tending to prove some kind of negligence. Notwithstanding the judge’s initial intent to permit access to our clients’ experts, we successfully convinced her that the Code of Civil Procedure did not permit such a ruling and she found in our clients’ favor. Finally, we successfully opposed an application for determination of good faith in settlement filed by another subcontractor. This subcontractor settled with the plaintiffs solely for a waiver of costs under the guise that an indemnity agreement between the two parties made the subcontractor an unnecessary party to the litigation. We successfully proved to the court that it was plaintiffs’ own expert who testified about defective work attributable to this subcontractor and that such evidence was sufficient to show that a waiver of costs was not within the ballpark of this subcontractor’s liability, the determining factor in a good faith ruling. Had this subcontractor been successful in its application – generally a foregone thought with any settlement in such a case – our client could have been stuck funding deficiencies attributable to this subcontractor. Following this ruling and the foreclosure on counsel to depose our clients’ experts we settled out the clients cheaply.
*** We represented a painting subcontractor in a construction defect action involving a 112-unit condominium complex in Alameda County. The general contractor brought our client into the case on a cross-complaint for express indemnity based on an onerous indemnity provision contained in the parties’ subcontract. The provision provided not only for “Type I” indemnity, but also for an immediate obligation to pay all of the general contractor’s defense costs for the entire action (including claims unrelated to our client’s work). The general contractor demanded in excess of $1.2 million from our client. Through aggressive and targeted discovery, we uncovered key information to support a motion for summary judgment to rescind the subcontract, and the onerous indemnity provision therein, based on procedural and substantive unconscionability theories. Shortly after we filed our client’s summary judgment motion, we received a call from the general contractor stating it wished to discuss settlement. We quickly obtained a favorable settlement for less than 4% of the general contractor’s demand.