|
M. Claims & Litigation History
<br />City of Sunny Isles Beach | Request for Qualifications No. 15-08-02
<br />September 23, 2015
<br />Page 55
<br />Response Hensel Phelps is or within the past five years has been involved in the following
<br />significant litigation matters related to Hensel Phelps’ project work.
<br />Hensel Phelps v. Bond
<br />Safeguard, Case No.
<br />14-cv-02495-KLM
<br />This action was filed in October 2014 in US District Court in Denver, Colorado, by Hensel
<br />Phelps against Bond Safeguard Insurance Company, as surety for Trainor Glass, to recover
<br />costs incurred by Hensel Phelps correcting defects in glass work installed by Trainor on the
<br />Denver Courthouse Project. Trainor ceased operations and was unable to perform and Hensel
<br />Phelps filed suit to recover the costs incurred performing on Trainor’s behalf when the surety
<br />refused the reimburse Hensel Phelps for these costs. The matter is currently in the early stages
<br />of discovery.
<br />Cupertino Electric, Inc. v.
<br />Hensel Phelps, CGC-14-
<br />542331
<br />This action was filed in October 2014 in San Francisco County, California, by Cupertino Electric,
<br />Inc. seeking to recover funds allegedly due and owing on a Stop Notice in the amount of
<br />$5,108,582.00 for work performed on the San Francisco Airport Terminal 3 project. The parties
<br />mutually agreed to stay the action while awaiting payment from the Owner and such payments
<br />have significantly reduced the amount of the claim. The parties continue to work together to
<br />facilitate payment of the remaining amounts arising out of an insurance claim.
<br />Blake’s Painting v.
<br />Hensel Phelps, Case No.
<br />9:14-CV-3020-SB
<br />This Miller Act case was filed in August 2014 in a South Carolina federal court by a painting
<br />subcontractor on the P444 and P454 Marine Training Simulator Facility and Hangar at the
<br />Marine Corps Air Station, Beaufort, South Carolina. The suit contends that Hensel Phelps
<br />has not paid Blake’s for work performed on the project. Hensel Phelps has filed an answer
<br />denying the claim given that Blake’s failed to perform its contractual duties by failing to staff
<br />the work and adhere to project specifications, allowing HPCC to withhold payment in order to
<br />supplement Blake’s work. The case has been stayed pending arbitration, which is scheduled
<br />for sometime in 2016.
<br />Radonich Corp. v.
<br />Cupertino Elec., et al.,
<br />Case No. 114cv264333
<br />This action was initially filed in April 2014 in Santa Clara, California, state court over a claim
<br />regarding the Santa Clara Medical Center Seismic Safety Project. This case stems from
<br />conflicting bridging documents provided by the owner related to the installation of a particular
<br />type of cable. Cal Coast Telecom (Radonich) has sued Cupertino over the non-payment of
<br />the proper cable and attendant labor. A claim has been made with the owner, the resolution of
<br />which is not complete. Cupertino sued Hensel Phelps on an implied indemnity theory related
<br />to the claim. The case will be arbitrated sometime in 2016.
<br />Beeler Barney &
<br />Associates Masonry
<br />Contractors, Inc. v. Hensel
<br />Phelps, et. al., Case No.
<br />1:14-CV-012-WKW
<br />This matter was filed in January 2014 in an Alabama federal court. The action is a Miller
<br />Act claim brought by a subcontractor stemming from a fatal accident, for which a different
<br />subcontractor was responsible, at a project in Ft. Rucker, Alabama. BBA received payment
<br />as part of a project-wide builder’s risk insurance claim, but alleges that the amount was not
<br />sufficient to cover its costs. Hensel Phelps disputes BBA’s claim, countering that its costs were
<br />due to its own failures, and that its accident-related costs were compensated by insurance.
<br />The parties agreed to mediate, which resulted in a global settlement of which HP contributed
<br />$7,500. Incidentally, there was a companion case with the same facts, Covenant v. Hensel
<br />Phelps, that was stayed in the same court and also settled at the same mediation.
<br />Westfield Insurance Co. v.
<br />HPCC and Noorda Sheet
<br />Metal Co., Case No. 13-
<br />CV-02419
<br />This matter is a declaratory action filed in September 2013 in the federal district of Colorado
<br />over the “HAATS” project at the Eagle County Airport in Gypsum, Colorado. The plaintiff
<br />surety issued performance and payment bonds on behalf of Noorda, the metal roof system
<br />subcontractor. Noorda experienced financial difficulties that led HPCC to terminate Noorda.
<br />Westfield stepped in under the bonds and HPCC agreed to reinstate Noorda. HPCC defaulted
<br />Noorda a second time for performance issues after its work failed. Westfield filed this action for
<br />a determination of rights related to HPCC’s termination of Noorda, HPCC’s testing procedures,
<br />and HPCC’s requirements for repair. All other claims are against other parties. HPCC filed
<br />a motion to arbitrate and the matter was resovled in mediation with Westfield agreeing to
<br />reimburse Hensel Phelps for costs incurred in correcting Noorda’s work in an amount in excess
<br />of $800,000.
<br />The Mark Condominium
<br />Owners Association v.
<br />The Mark Condominiums
<br />LLC, Case No. 37-2013-
<br />00049168
<br />This action commenced in July 2013 in San Diego County, California, by the Home Owners
<br />Association of the Mark Condominium project in San Diego, California against the Developer,
<br />Designer, Hensel Phelps, and several subcontractors and material suppliers alleging
<br />construction defects and warranty issues. Most of the defendants were covered by an Owner
<br />Controlled Insurance Program which assumed defense of the matter on behalf of all named
<br />insureds. The case is in its infancy and is being investigated. Discovery has yet to begin.
|