. .

Invest in your success.
JVRA helps lawyers win cases by providing critical information you can use to establish precedent, determine demand and win arguments.

ARTICLE ID 182262

$________ FOR PLAINTIFF, FOR CROSS-DEFENDANT Contract - Indemnity - Fraud - Defendant architect allegedly causes delay of design and construction - Defendant cross-complains with indemnity and fraud accusations.

Santa Barbara County, California

In this action for breach of contract and professional negligence, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant architect caused significant monetary loss due to delay of design and construction of a mixed-use commercial/residential property. The defendant not only denied the allegations, but cross-claimed against the cross-defendant general contractor for indemnity and fraud.

The plaintiff had contracted with the defendant architect to perform certain services on a piece of mixed-use commercial and residential property that he owned. At one point during the construction, the plaintiff became dissatisfied with the architects progress due to delays; citing a total of $________ in delay damages. According to the plaintiff, these damages consisted of $________ in change orders which increased construction costs; $________ in lost rents from apartment units; $________ in alternative facility rent for his auto business; $________ for an additional year of construction insurance; $________ in additional construction loan interest; $________ in additional architectural fees and $________ in loss of value to his condominiums.

As a result, the plaintiff sued the defendant architect claiming that the defendant was in breach of contract due to his failure to prepare adequate construction plans and his failure to timely respond to requests for information. In response, not only did the architect deny the allegations, but he also alleged that the plaintiff failed to timely pay bills and review contractor change orders. The defendant architect also argued that neither the plaintiff nor the cross-defendant general contractor properly informed him of change orders that would result in large cost increases. Moreover, the defendant asserted that the cross- defendant had fraudulently induced him to return to the project despite a mutual termination of his contract.

Ultimately, on December 20, ________, after a ten week trial and three day deliberation, the jury returned a verdict in favor of 3 3 the plaintiff. Specifically, the jury found that the defendant architect did not breach his contract, but that he was negligent in performing certain architectural services. In addition, the jury returned a complete defense verdict for the cross-defendant on both the indemnity and fraud claims. The plaintiff was then awarded a total sum of $________. That sum was then reduced in accordance with the jury’s finding that the plaintiff was 5% comparatively negligent. However, the plaintiff also prevailed on a post-trial motion for determination of prevailing party; receiving $________ in attorneys’ fees and costs. Thus, the plaintiff’s net recovery was $________. Also, the cross-defendant general contractor was awarded $________ in attorneys’ fees and costs.

To read the full article, please login to your account or purchase

5 ways to win with JVRA

JVRA gives you jurisdiction-specific, year-round insight into the strategies, arguments and tactics that win. Successful attorneys come to the table prepared and use JVRA to:

  1. Determine if a case is winnable and recovery amounts.
  2. Determine reasonable demand for a case early on.
  3. Support a settlement demand by establishing precedent.
  4. Research trial strategies, tactics and arguments.
  5. Defeat or support post-trial motions through past case histories.

Try JVRA for a day or a month, or sign up for our deluxe Litigation Support Plan and put the intelligence of JVRA to work for all of your clients. See our subscription plans.