newsletter.php Riddle & Williams, P.C.

 


REPRESENTATIVE JUDGMENTS AND SETTLEMENTS**



















 


Example Case #1
Result: Riddle & Williams, P.C. and Charles E. Dorr, P.C. recently recovered $4.742 million for a condominium association ($1.4 million to litigation expenses, attorneys’ fees and court costs).

Nature of Case: A condominium association sued its developer and builder for numerous construction defects, including failure to properly seal penetrations in fire rated walls, floors and ceilings. The defects constituted life-safety issues. The city’s building inspector determined to condemn the entire condominium building containing 86 luxury units if the fire safety defects were not remedied. The owners’ investments of approximately $25 million were at stake. The developer and builder in turn brought third-party claims against the subcontractors. The defendants recognized that if the city condemned the building, then damages would be astronomical. The defendants faced tremendous risk if they failed to contribute adequate money to fund the necessary repairs. Defendants ultimately contributed sufficient funds to repair the life-safety defects and avoid condemnation.

The Client’s Perspective: “When we discovered the life-safety defects, we sought interest from many well-known law firms in the area. Upon reviewing our situation, their opinion was that with new pro-builder regulations, our chances of any type of recovery were slim. From the moment of Mr. Riddle’s involvement, our community was able to seize and maintain the offensive. The result was a complete vindication of our claims: a mediated settlement with enough funding to address all life-safety issues in the building. Our homes and investments were saved.”    
Chris Payne, Board member.

Example Case #2
Result: Riddle & Williams, P.C. recovered just over $1,000,000 plus additional expenses and costs for structural defects ($175,000 to litigation expenses, attorney’s fees and court costs).

Nature of Case: Two (2) units in a condominium had design and construction defects which qualified as structural instead of cosmetic problems. Although not life-safety issues, resale values could forever be impacted. We were able to negotiate a total made whole settlement for our client.

Example Case #3
Result: Recovered judgment against roofer for $900,000 (less than $30,000 in litigation expenses, attorney’s fees and court costs).

Nature of Case: A condominium engaged a roofer to install new roofing. The roofing contractor failed to install the roof in a good and workmanlike manner and according to the specifications of the work. Roofs began to leak and needed major rehab work to make living units water tight.

back to top


 


Example Case #1
Result: $260,000.00 recovery for homeowner association ($46,800.00 to litigation expenses, attorneys’ fees and court costs).

Nature of case: A residential developer conveyed a mile-long strip of common area running through the middle of the community to the association without planting sod or installing irrigation necessary to maintain an attractive greenbelt. The developer’s marketing materials promised beautifully-landscaped common areas and amenities. However, the condition of the common area was deplorable and damaging to property values. The owner-controlled residential association sued the developer for failure to complete in a good and acceptable condition the common areas. Using the settlement funds, the community was able to sod and irrigate the common area so that community appeal and home values are better preserved.

** We cannot guarantee the results of any case or litigation, and, specifically, cannot represent that outcomes similar to the representative cases can be achieved in your case or circumstance. The specific factual and legal circumstances of each client’s case must be considered.

Example Case #2
Result: Riddle & Williams, P.C. recently negotiated a settlement exceeding $150,000 in total value, which included a monetary payment of $110,000 along with work and improvements to the association’s common area (litigation expenses, including attorney’s fees, was less than $5,000).

Nature of Case: Shortly after transition of control from the developer to the owners, the association’s newly-elected board of directors discovered problems/concerns involving portions of the common areas. Among other things, the association identified problems with the following: drainage, erosion, common area irrigation systems, common area trees dying, playground equipment in decay and swimming pool defects and leaks. The association was successful at achieving remedial and replacement work paid for by the developer as well as a monetary settlement to resolve and eliminate the common area concerns.


back to top


 


Example Case #1
Result: $375,000.00 recovery obtained for condominium ($100,298.26 to expert fees, litigation expenses, attorney’s fees and court costs).

Nature of case: A condominium association filed a claim with its insurance carrier seeking coverage for damage to its foundation arising from water leaks. The insurance company denied coverage based upon policy exclusions. The association asserted claims for violation of the Texas Insurance Code and deceptive trade practices. We established that the insurer failed to abide by the Texas Insurance Code governing the time periods to accept or deny coverage. More importantly, through thorough investigation and discovery, the association was able to demonstrate that the insurer ignored a plausible ground for coverage and should settle the claim.

Example Case #2
Result: $105,000 recovery for condominium from insurance carriers ($23,900 in litigation expenses, attorney’s fees and court costs).

Nature of case: An owner reported mold in his unit due to a common element source. The association notified its property carrier and general liability carrier who denied coverage. The association expended approximately $100,000 of its money to identify and solve the common element leak and perform interior unit repairs, including mold remediation. The association then hired Riddle & Williams, P.C. to protect its rights and seek payment from its insurance carriers. We recovered a settlement of $102,000 from two (2) different carriers to defray the association’s expenses in resolving the water leak and mold problems.

back to top


 


Result: Judgment for defendant condominium association and association also awarded judgment for its legal fees. The legal fees and expenses incurred in defending this case were less than $50,000.00.

Nature of case: Owner brought a suit against a condominium association alleging that the association had failed to maintain the common elements. As a result of the association’s alleged failure to maintain the common elements, the plaintiff claimed damage to her unit, personal injury and pain and suffering. A vigorous defense was mounted and a counter-claim filed for recovery of the association’s legal fees incurred in defending the case. The association demonstrated it had incurred over $40,000.00 in repair costs aimed at responding to plaintiff’s complaints. The association demonstrated it had not failed to reasonably discharge its maintenance obligations.

back to top


 


Result: Permanent injunction granted in favor of homeowners association ordering owner to remove more than fifteen alterations placed on the lot and home without prior approval of the architectural control committee. Additionally, the court awarded the association $70,800.00 in civil penalties against the defendant, as well as all its attorney’s fees and costs. The association settled the case with the defendant upon payment of $50,000.00 in fines and removal of all unapproved alterations. The association’s litigation expenses and attorney’s fees were less than $15,000.00.


** We cannot guarantee the results of any case or litigation, and, specifically, cannot represent that outcomes similar to the representative cases can be achieved in your case or situation. The specific factual and legal circumstances of each client’s case must be considered.

Nature of case: Without first obtaining written approval from the association’s architectural control committee, an owner made numerous modifications and alterations to his home and lot. The alterations were so bizarre as to compel a real estate broker to conclude she could not sell an adjacent home due to its unattractiveness. The association filed suit seeking a court order which instructed the owner to remove the unapproved alterations from the home and lot and restore the property to a condition substantially similar to that which existed prior to making the unapproved alterations. The association also asserted a claim for $200.00 per day in civil penalties for the owner’s violation of the deed restrictions.

back to top


 


Result: Negotiated a dismissal of a wrongful death case against a management company. Plaintiff received no monetary award from management company. Attorney’s fees and expenses incurred in the defense of this case were less than $5,000.00.

Nature of case: Plaintiff asserted claims against a management company on the basis of management’s alleged failure to properly maintain the roof and other common elements which caused water leaks. Plaintiff further claimed that water leaks caused the growth of toxic mold which contributed to and/or caused the death of the occupant. We diligently investigated the facts and claims. Years of records were searched. We convinced plaintiff’s attorney that our client had no legal duty or obligation to plaintiff. A total dismissal of the case against the manager was negotiated and plaintiff agreed to dismiss the claims.

back to top


 


Result: Confidential settlement achieved on behalf of a small business owner for damages from toxic contamination.

Nature of case: A property owner filed suit against an adjacent industrial owner for loss in value and related damages for alleged contamination of soil due to migration of chemicals and other contaminants from a nearby industrial site. The case included claims commonly referred to as toxic tort. The defendant decided to settle the case prior to significant and costly discovery being conducted and prior to expending significant dollars to defend.

back to top


 


Result: Confidential settlement was obtained on behalf of a single female harassed in the work place by her immediate supervisor. As a result, our client was able to recover financially and emotionally from the torment caused by sex-based mistreatment and the constructive termination of her job.

** We cannot guarantee the results of any case or litigation, and, specifically, cannot represent that outcomes similar to the representative cases can be achieved in your case or situation. The specific factual and legal circumstances of each client’s case must be considered.


Nature of case: A single female employee was subjected to constant sexual harassment, intimidation and advances by her immediate supervisor. She complained in confidence to human resources. Against her express instructions, and in violation of their promise, human resources reported the charge to her supervisor, who in turn aggressively confronted the innocent young employee. The defendant’s treatment of its employee was so egregious and unfair, she left work, the city, the state and returned home to her father. Defendant settled only after hotly contesting liability and damages. Subsequent to lengthy written discovery, depositions, motions and three (3) unsuccessful mediations, we pursued a motion for summary judgment to preclude defendant’s affirmative defenses and establish defendant’s liability. Although the court denied the motion, the court concluded and expressly stated in its order that: “[Plaintiff] suffered a hostile work environment at the hands of [plaintiff’s supervisor]...a fact which cannot be exorcized from the legal calculus.” The court’s finding motivated defendant to settle.

** We cannot guarantee the results of any case or litigation, and, specifically, cannot represent that outcomes similar to the representative cases can be achieved in your case or situation. The specific factual and legal circumstances of each client’s case must be considered.

back to top