Nowell A. Lantz

The firm represented the general contractor in a dispute with a multi-national subcontractor over the construction of 100 wind turbine generators in central California.

The project was delayed – causing the general contractor to declare the subcontractor in default.  The subcontractor claimed over $8 million in additional construction costs due to changes, weather delays, impacts, and acceleration.  The subcontractor brought arbitration against the general contractor for the increased costs.

The firm’s first task was to evaluate the merits of the parties’ positions and determine whether the case could be settled.  Based on the firm’s recommendation, the general contractor made a seven-figure statutory offer to settle the dispute.  The subcontractor rejected the settlement offer.

Discovery results in critical insights.

Through discovery, the firm learned the subcontractor had not been properly licensed, had executed certain claim releases during construction, and had not incurred the claimed acceleration costs.  Discovery took multiple years, with twenty-four depositions across the country and in Canada.  The matter proceeded to a three-week arbitration at which eighteen witnesses were called.  During arbitration, the firm successfully rebutted the subcontractor’s excessive and inflated claims.

Firm and client prevail in arbitration.

Following arbitration, the subcontractor was awarded a small percentage of its overall claim.  Most importantly, the amount awarded to the subcontractor was less than the settlement amount offered by the general contractor years before.  As a result, the arbitrator ruled the firm’s client was the prevailing party in the matter, and that the firm’s client was entitled to its attorneys’ fees and costs to defend against the claim.

In the end, the firm’s client paid nothing to the subcontractor — a result significantly better for the firm’s client than had it accepted any of the multiple settlement offers made by the subcontractor.

Counsel: P. Randolph Finch Jr., Daniel P. Scholz, and Lindsey C. Herzik

The firm represented a large design-build contractor on an approximately $100mm design-build public work of improvement.

The firm’s client retained an architectural firm to prepare the design.  Ultimately, however, the design was not in compliance with applicable codes according to regulatory authorities — thus requiring a significantly revised design and increased construction costs.

The firm’s client sued for the increased costs to comply with the changed design and delay costs.

Following mediation, at which the claims were convincingly presented by Finch, Thornton & Baird, LLP attorneys, the case settled for a seven-figure payment to the firm’s client.

Counsel:  Nowell A. Lantz

The firm represented a prime contractor in claims against a subcontractor on a combination privately/publicly funded project.  The claims arose from the subcontractor defaulting on the performance of its subcontract obligations, including failing to properly install electrical work, failing to pay suppliers, and failing to meet schedule milestones.

Legal Ingenuity Prevails.

Despite the subcontractor having no assets and being unbonded — and significant problems with insurance coverage — the firm was able to secure a six-figure settlement from a combination of defendants, including the subcontractor and insurance carriers.

Counsel: Nowell A. Lantz

The Firm began representing the prime contractor as project counsel concerning this unique cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) project.

The Firm helped position its client to declare owner default, stop work based on owner breaches of Public Contract Code section 1104 (lack of buildable plans), and avoid performance bond surety takeover, as well as mitigate risk with the client’s CIPP subcontractor, its surety, and liability insurers.  These tasks required a thorough understanding of the CIPP specifications, the CIPP industry players, and strong relationships with the sureties.

The project owner sought over $10 million from the Firm’s client and surety.

Post declaration of default, litigation commenced among the client, project owner, subcontractor, and sureties, with the project owner seeking more than $10 million from the Firm’s client and surety.  The Firm was able to shift defense costs to liability insurers and mitigate the out-of-pocket litigation costs to its client.  The project owner incurred over $1 million in attorneys’ fees.

The case settled for payment to the Firm’s client.

After two years of litigation, depositions of the key project participants and CIPP industry participants around the country, with a six-week jury trial looming, and following three mediation sessions over six months, the case settled for payment to the Firm’s client, hailed as an excellent result in this bet-the-company (and personal assets supporting the bonding line) case.

Counsel: P. Randolph Finch Jr., Nowell A. Lantz, and Andrea L. Petray

Petitioned for breach of trust, removal, and surcharge against a corporate trustee, succeeding in compelling a multi-million dollar distribution and resolving the dispute in a settlement favorable to the firm’s client.

Counsel: Nowell A. Lantz

The firm successfully defended claims by a trade contractor against a construction manager and owner’s agent on a multiunit construction project. The firm’s client was the construction manager and owner’s representative for the work, responsible for the management of various trade contractors. A trade contractor sued the firm’s client claiming to be entitled to significant additional costs. Following investigation and discovery, the firm was able to obtain a full dismissal of its client for a nuisance value settlement.

Counsel: Nowell A. Lantz

The firm successfully pursued claims for disgorgement for unlicensed contracting and for defective construction on a private construction project, resulting in settlements in excess of $1,100,000.00.  The firm’s client contracted with an unlicensed contractor to perform work.  After the contractor claimed to be a project manager, the firm pursued claims for disgorgement, fraud, negligence and violation of contractors’ license laws against various parties.  After investigation and discovery, settlements in excess of the amounts paid to the unlicensed contractor were obtained.

Counsel: P. Randolph Finch Jr. and Nowell A. Lantz

Numerous subcontractors initiated litigation against the firm’s general contractor client and the project owner to collect subcontract balances. The firm’s client asserted the pass through claims for unpaid contract balance and for additional overhead to build the project, which was completed over one year behind schedule. The project owner countered with a delay claim and other claims. Through a series of negotiations, settlement conferences, and mediation just prior to a jury trial, the firm’s client was paid on its claim for additional compensation, and received full indemnity from the owner for all subcontractor suits.

San Diego Superior Court Case No. GIC881652

Counsel: Nowell A. Lantz

The firm represented a general contractor client on a major rehabilitation project involving the redevelopment of historical land.  The project was funded by numerous entities and involved a variety of stakeholders.  During the course of the project, change orders and additional work were approved by the owner that were in excess of the scope of the project budget.  At the time of project closeout, the owners were unable to make payment and the lenders refused to release payments for work that was performed within budget.  At the firm’s direction, the client served a bonded stop notice on the lenders and pursued litigation.  Ultimately, despite the owners being unable to make further payments, the client recovered over $1.6 million.

Counsel: P. Randolph Finch Jr. and Nowell A. Lantz

The firm represented a large prime contractor specializing in Federal work in a bid protest against the Army Corps. of Engineers. The protest, on a proposal for $500 million worth of work on various Federal Installations, was based on the Army Corps’ improper rejection of a submittal in violation of its own specifications and applicable law. The firm prepared a bid protest and provided supporting cases and analysis to support the bid protest and discussions, ultimately resulting in the acceptance of the contractor’s submittal.

Counsel: David S. Demian and Nowell A. Lantz

The dispute involved a nine school site construction project at a local school district, valued at over $100 million. After terminating the architect for convenience, the school district was sued for payment owed, lost profits, and bad faith termination. The architect also sued the former assistant superintendent personally for intentional interference with its contract. The matter culminated in a three and a half week jury trial in which the firm represented the local school district and was successful in excluding the claims for lost profits and bad faith termination, and the allegations against the individual district employee, totaling approximately $1.3 million. The firm also secured a jury verdict for damages against the negligent architect, and partially defended the claims for outstanding payments.

San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2009-00083936-CU-CO-CTL

Counsel: Nowell A. Lantz and Daniel P. Scholz

The firm’s three clients were sued by a private golf club for breach of fiduciary duty, interference with prospective economic advantage and intentional interference with contract, based on their roles as Directors of a Homeowners Association in a multi-million dollar Rancho Santa Fe neighborhood.  After completion of significant discovery and attack on the claims against its clients, and at the sole expense of the Board’s Directors and Officers insurer, the firm prevailed on a motion for summary judgment as to all claims against one of its three clients.  Dismissals of all claims against the other two firm clients followed immediately thereafter, as did the bankruptcy filing of the golf club.

Counsel: P. Randolph Finch Jr. and Nowell A. Lantz