# 1266062, Peter Kurrels v. Murray Duncan Architects, filed 2/1/08

Plaintiff’s Attorney: John S. Poucher

Cross-defendant’s Attorney: Darren W. Epps

Verdict: $225,683.90                                   Dept. 4: Hon. James W. Brown

Plaintiff developer hired Defendant architect to create design drawings for a mixed use building on the east side of Santa Barbara, initially to include condominiums but later revised to consist of apartments with the option of condo conversion. Many delays occurred in the plan approval process with the City.  A permit was eventually obtained and the parties mutually ended their working relationship after Defendant architect received outstanding monies due from Plaintiff. Plaintiff then hired cross-Defendant contractor to bid and build the project for a fixed price using the plans as presented. At or near this same time and at the urging of cross-Defendant contractor, Plaintiff and Defendant architect enter a second contract for construction administration, choosing to re-hire Defendant architect as an alternate architect would be too expensive. Cross-Defendant acted as a liaison between Plaintiff and Defendant architect during the construction of the project and reviewed all billings of Defendant architect prior to payment by Plaintiff. Plaintiff and cross-Defendant claimed the plans used were a builder’s set containing numerous defects, errors, omissions and deficiencies; prompting multiple requests for information (RFI’s) and change orders; and that Defendant architect did not timely provide necessary details which resulted in project delays and increased construction costs. Plaintiff sued on breach of contract and negligence for losses associated with change orders increasing construction costs ($653,000), lost rents from apartment units ($115,200), additional construction loan interest expenses ($265,480), alternate facility rent for business ($53,425),extra year of construction insurance ($7,900), added architectural fees ($111,659) and lost value on condo sales ($650,000). Defendant architect claimed his services never fell below the standard of care and that he never breached any contract. Architect’s cross-complaint against contractor alleged fraud and misrepresentation arising from the second contract for construction administration.  Jury found Plaintiff did not substantially perform on the contract and was not excused from performance. Jury found against Defendant architect on negligence apportioning 55% against architect, 5% against Plaintiff and 45% against others with a total award of $237,562.00.  Jury found for cross-Defendant contractor on Defendant architect’s cross-complaint. Plaintiff submitted a cost bill of $26,999.84 and cross-Defendant contractor submitted a cost bill of $82,052.81. Defendant architect’s motions to tax the cost bills of Plaintiff and Defendant contractor were both denied. Defendant contractor also awarded attorney’s fees of $15,365.00.

For more information about this Verdict, feel free to use the “Contact” link.