Case Style: Gardner Construction Group, L.L.C. v. Larry C. Kester d/b/a Architects Collective
Case Number: CJ-2007-7261
Judge: Bryan C. Dixon
Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma
Plaintiff's Attorney: Clell I. Cunningham, Dunn Swann & Cunningham, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and Shad K. Withers, Miller Dollarhide, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma for Lincoln Road Apartments, L.L.C. and Gardner Construction Group, L.L.C.
Defendant's Attorney: W. Michael Hill and james K. Secrest III, Secrest, Hill & Butler, Tulsa, Oklahoma for Larry C. Kester
Bradley Kent Donnell, McAfee & Taft, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma for Cardinal Engineering, Inc.
Description: Gardner Construction Group, L.L.C. sued Larry C. Kester d/b/a Architects Collective and Cardinal Engineering, Inc. on breach of contract theories and negligence theories.
Plaintiff, Gardner Construction Group, L.L.C., is a general contractor engaged in the business of constructing and overseeing the construction of commercial buidlings. Plaintiff, Lincoln Road Apartments, L.L.C., is the owner of real property located in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma upon which a multi-building apartment was constructed. Lincoln Road Apartments, LLC engaged Gardner Construction Group, LLC to act as general contractor for the construction of the Apartment Complex. Plaintiff entered into an agreement dated April 15, 2004 with Defendant, wherein Defendant was to provide all architectural, engineering and design work necessary for the construction of the Apartment Complex, including without limitation, all plans and specification in conformance with applicable local, state and federal building codes and other requirements. Furthermore, the services of the Defendant were to be performed "expeditiously", with "professional skill", with "case", as required under the terms of the contract. Plaintiff contended that Defendant breached the contract it entered into with Plaintiffs by failing to perform the work in regards to the Apartment Complex to meed the applicable local, state and federal building requirements, and otherwise failed to prepare the plans, specification, and services in accordance with the terms of the contract.
Plaintiff claimed that it suffered $900,000 in damages.
Defendant denied that it breached the contract, denied proximate causation, denied Plaintiff's damage claims. Defendant also claimed that Plaintiff failed to mitigate its damage and asserted various other defenses.
Outcome: Defendants' verdict.