In a recent New Jersey decision, this Firm succeeded in obtaining
partial summary judgment in a construction defect case, dismissing multiple
causes of action and claims against our client. With this decision, the
Court dismissed over 98% of the Plaintiff’s claimed damages of $6.1 million
asserted against our client. The case is Views at Hudson Pointe
Condominium Association v. K. Hovnanian at Hudson Pointe, LLC, et al., venued
in Superior Court, Hudson County.
In the Views at Hudson Pointe case, Plaintiff condominium association claims significant construction
defects in a large residential condominium complex located on the shores of the
Hudson River in North Bergen, New Jersey. Our client, a concrete
subcontractor, is alleged to have been responsible for concrete cracking and
piping deficiencies in the two on-site garages. As part of a plan to
repair the alleged cracking, Plaintiff’s expert opined that an expensive
traffic coating would be needed in each garage, at an approximate cost of $5.8
million dollars.
Through discovery, the following was determined: (1) the garage
plans provided to our client did not include a traffic coating; (2) our
client was not contracted to put down such a coating; (3) our client was not retained to design the garages, only to construct
them; (4) no one ever requested our
client to install a traffic
coating; (5) Plaintiff’s expert stated that the inclusion of a traffic
coating would have been a “better design” for the garages; and (6) multiple parties acknowledged that
our client had no role in the installation of piping, and that the
claimed deficiencies were the responsibility of the piping contractor.
Accordingly, we moved for summary judgment at
the close of discovery, on the grounds that the installation of a traffic coating
was an obligation not found in the contract and for which Plaintiff could not
recover. In granting this portion of the motion, the Court found it clear that the traffic coating had not been part of the original plans for
the garages. Furthermore, the Court found that our client had no role in
the design of the garages, and therefore, could not be held responsible for the
proposed cost of installing such a coating. Therefore, the Court limited
the Plaintiff’s recoverable damages against our client to the cost of repairing
the cracks in the garages with concrete filler, which Plaintiff’s own expert
estimated at approximately $100,000.00 dollars.
The Court also dismissed the claims relating to
piping in the garages, stating that the evidence clearly showed that our client
played no role in this work.
This decision
highlights that a Plaintiff in a
construction defect matter may only recover damages that provide them with the benefit of the bargain – in this
case, two garages without a traffic coating. A Plaintiff in this type of action is not entitled to receive a
better building than was envisioned by
the plans.
It is common for condominium
association experts in construction
defect cases to inflate the cost to repair the alleged defects by
inserting items that substantially improve upon the design of a particular
building. With this decision, the Court affirmed that a plaintiff will
not be permitted to inflate its damages
estimates in order to improve a building with upgraded designs and/or
materials.
