Case Studies
case study #1
Braganza v. Pulte Home - Trial of Travelers’ Equitable Subrogation Claim
Riverside Superior Court Case No. MCC 1300147) Before Hon. Craig Riemer
Facts:
Travelers brought a claim against the subcontractors in a multi-party construction defect case for equitable subrogation to recover the defense fees and costs Travelers paid to defend Pulte Home in the underling construction defect matter pursuant to its additional insured obligations.
Ryan Baldino was the lead trial attorney for the window and cabinet subcontractors. While a majority of the subcontractors paid a premium to settle the subrogation claims, the six remaining subcontractor took the matter to trial before Judge Reimer in Riverside Superior Court.
Result:
After a multi-day bench trial with numerous witnesses and consideration of the closing briefs regarding the realities of allocating defense fees amongst numerous subcontractors with overlapping contractual indemnity obligations, the Court ruled that Travelers, as a matter of law, had no claim for equitable subrogation. Court granted a defense verdict in favor of all subcontractors and awarded the subcontractors prevailing party attorneys fees pursuant to the terms of their subcontracts with the Developer.
case study #2
Adriana Falcon v. D. R. Horton Los Angeles Holding Co. Inc. – Trial of Defense Fees under Crawford.
2017 Riverside Superior Court Case No. RIC1112846) Before Hon. Sharon J. Waters.
Facts:
Plaintiff homeowners brought a construction defect action against D.R. Horton Los Angeles Holding Co. Inc. and filed direct actions against the subcontractors. Ryan Baldino represented Milgard and settled Plaintiffs’ claim early. Thereafter, Plaintiffs settled with D.R. Horton. D.R. then Horton proceeded to trial on its cross-complaint against only Milgard seeking its contractual defense fees pursuant to the case of Crawford v. Weather Shield Mfg. Inc. (2008) 44 Cal. 4th 514.
Results:
At trial, D.R. Horton’s counsel argued Milgard’s allocation of defense fees and costs were in excess of 45% of its defense fees and cost. Milgard asserted that based on the window claims in the defect list, the proper allocation was 5%. After a bench trial, the Court ruled that Milgard’s allocation of Crawford fees was only 6%.
case study #3
Union Square HOA v. Western Pacific Housing – Broadway, LLC. – Class Action Window Defense Verdict.
2016- San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2011-00091935-CU-CD-CTL) Before Hon. Ronald L. Styn.
Facts:
260 owners of units with a condominium project in downtown San Diego filed a construction defect action against the Developer and subcontractors. Ryan Baldino represented Milgard, which supplied, but did not install the vinyl windows. As a product manufacturer, Milgard was not enrolled in the Owner Controlled Insurance Program (“OCIP”) on the project. Before trial, the Developer, and all OCIP covered subcontractors settled, leaving only the HOA’s claims against Milgard. Plaintiffs were granted class-action status to sue for $6,000,000 in damages for alleged product defects and statutory violations of California’s Right to Repair Act.
Results:
Milgard prevailed by obtaining a complete defense verdict after a 13-day jury trial. We demonstrated that any alleged product issues were caused by improper installation by others, or test induced leaks caused by the improper testing methodologies of the HOA’s fenestration expert. The matter settled in Milgard’s favor after Milgard filed its motion for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to a Civil Code Section 998 Offer to Compromise.
case study #4
Arbor Real Homeowners Association v. Western Pacific Housing, Inc. – Window Defect Arbitration
2018 -JAMS Case No. 1100085234. Before Kenneth D. Gack, Esq.
Facts:
The HOA for a 129-unit condominium project and clubhouse located in Palo Alto, California filed an arbitration demand alleging construction defects against Western Pacific Housing and its subcontractors. Western Pacific and all other subcontractors settled before Arbitration. The HOA proceeded in its direct action against Milgard seeking $12,000,000 in damages for the removal and replacement of all 2,382 windows at the project. Ryan Baldino represented Milgard and presented evidence there was not a history of window leaks on the project based on the warranty records of Milgard and Western Pacific. Milgard attacked the testing and extrapolation methodologies employed by the HOA’s fenestration expert for not complying with AAMA and ASTM standards in the industry. Milgard argued the only repairs needed were warranty repairs, which had the HOA provided notice to Milgard, Milgard would have repaired under to its warranty.
Results:
After a two-week Arbitration, the Arbitrator found the HOA did not prove the Milgard products were universally defective. The HOA’s demand for removal and replacement of the windows was rejected. Instead, The Arbitrator only awarded the HOA limited window repairs.