Rawle & Henderson LLP
  -- Established 1783 --
Home About Rawle Practices Offices Attorneys Reports & Articles News & Events Careers
Rawle Results
Defense Verdict in Construction Defect Action
01/26/09

Contact
Daniel J. Rucket
(215) 575-4217

Daniel J. Rucket a partner in Rawle & Henderson’s Philadelphia office recently obtained a defense verdict in a six day construction defect trial in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, Pennsylvania. The lawsuit involved property damage sustained by plaintiffs during the construction of their home during a squall that caused the framed, but not completed, structure to lean. The plaintiffs reported the leaning to their insurance company, which proceeded to hire an engineer to investigate and make repair recommendations. The insurance company coordinated and paid for repairs to the home. After the home was completed and plaintiffs moved in, the plaintiffs noticed that the house continued to lean. They reported the condition to their insurance company, which denied the claim. The plaintiffs proceeded to file a lawsuit against the insurance company for breach of contract, negligence and bad faith and against the architect, builder, and engineer for negligence. The insurance company then joined our client, the developer and owner of a patented, panelized wall system used on the home, claiming that it had failed to provide sufficient instructions and warnings to the architect and builder to allow them properly to determine the amount of sheathing required to prevent the house from leaning. The insurance company settled with the plaintiffs for $647,950, paying them to demolish and rebuild the house. The plaintiffs did not make any repairs and later sold the house for $710,000. The case proceeded to trial as a subrogation claim by the insurance company. The case was tried before newly appointed President Judge Susan Devlin Scott. The jury returned a verdict against the builder and homeowners on the claim for the original leaning and against the engineer and homeowners for the claim for the second leaning. The jury did not find our client responsible for either claim.