The jury in Andersen Builders v. Kritikos found contract breaches by Andersen, Mr. Kritikos, and Arcs Construction Services.

In closing argument, plaintiff attorney Jack Seiler reminded the jury that Andersen believed the case to be a simple breach of contract. Mr. Kritikos requested that Andersen build a showpiece house on Jupiter Island. There was a contract, and Andersen performed under the contract. Andersen provided laborers, supervision of trades, a working superintendent, hands-on supervision, and coordinated with local and state building officials.

Attorney Thomas Berger argued that delay damages against Andersen were inappropriate because, despite Mr. Kritikos’ claim that Andersen had committed to a 14-month absolute completion date, there was no such date in the contract. The contract did not indicate that time was of the essence, nor was there a liquidated damages clause. Moreover, at no time was Andersen’s fee reduced because of any delay.

Although there were delays, said Mr. Seiler, the delays were not Andersen’s fault.  Many of the delays were caused by Mr. Kritikos, and others were the result of storms. Mr. Seiler challenged the jury to consider why the defendants had spent $800K in expert witness fees to avoid meeting their obligations under the contract.

Mr. Seiler concluded, “This man decided that because he got in an argument with his architect and got in an argument with his design team that he’s firing everyone and not paying Mr. Andersen…Mr. Andersen is stilled owed $548,000 for the work he did here at this property. And Mr. Kritikos needs to pay that bill.”

On behalf of Mr. Kritikos, attorney Louis Mrachek pointed out that Anderson had never built a house anything like this before, and Anderson should have disclosed their inexperience, which resulted in a house way over budget and behind schedule.  According to Mr. Mrachek, Anderson received a lot more money than it was entitled to based on what it built.

Mr. Mrachek accused Mr. Seiler of muddying the waters by pointing at the effects of hurricanes and the amount of money experts were paid, rather than what the experts said. The real issue, said Mr. Mracheck, was whether Andersen performed as required by the contract. Mr. Mracheck also requested damages against construction manager Arcs of $1,139,343 for breach of contract, $300,615 against Arcs for acting as a contractor without a license, and $1,196,800 against Peter Gluck for negligence.

In defense of Arcs Construction Services and Gluck, attorney Ted Mortell claimed that Arcs was not acting as construction manager, not general contractor. Further, Arcs did not breach its contract, and architect Peter Gluck was not negligent. Mr. Mortell pointed to Mr. Kritikos’ history of litigation and suggested that Mr. Kritikos had shown a pattern of refusing to pay contractors. “That’s who Mr. Kritikos is,” said Mr. Mortell. “He is a ruthless, wealthy man who uses his money and his lawyers to get what he wants…he knew exactly what was going on, you can watch the budget increase month by month, never said a peep. Never objected. Never complained, until February or March…when it’s getting close to the end.”

The jury found that Andersen suffered $548K in damages due to Mr. Kritikos’ breach of contract, and Mr. Kritikos suffered delay damages of $130,000 due to Andersen’s breach of contract.  The jury also found a breach of contract by Arcs, which resulted in $1,139,343 in damages owed to Mr. Kritikos. The jury also concluded that Arcs did not act as a contractor, and that there was no negligence by architect Peter Gluck in the design of the Kritikos house.

CVN webcast Andersen v. Kritikos live.

Opening statements were heard Tuesday in CVN’s webcast of Andersen Builders v. Kritikos.

According to plaintiff attorney Jack Seiler, the case was very simple: “Andersen Builders did the work, did it well, got fired, and didn’t get paid.” Thirty-two consecutive payment applications were submitted by Andersen and were paid without objection. According to Seiler, the owner, Chris Kritikos, got in an argument with the architect, Peter Gluck. As a result of this dispute, Andersen was not paid for its last eight draws, totaling $548K.

According to defense attorney Louis Mrachek, representing owner Chris Kritikos, the owner was given an estimate of $4.1M and 14 months to complete the house, but the house was nowhere near done at the promised time or promised price. Mrachek said that Andersen had no experience building this type of high-end house, and that Andersen overcharged for the work. At the time the home should have been completed, $5.4M had been spent, the work was only 50-65% completed, and the budget had increased to $8M.

Ted Mortell, representing architect Peter Gluck, said that the owner requested significant changes, such as switching the exterior from stucco to marble, which increased both the price and slowed the construction. Also, said Mortell, Mr. Gluck is a world-renowned architect whose plans were not negligently prepared. Finally, although the project may have been 65% completed, it was nonetheless only a few months from completion, because the last 35% would not have taken as long as the first 35%.

Watch CVN’s webcast of Andersen v. Kritikos. 

“This is a suit about keeping promises,” plaintiff attorney Michael Keating of Foley Hoag told the jury in SWINC v. Lloyd’s Underwriters. 

The plaintiff, SWINC, represented the bankruptcy estate of Stone & Webster, a large projects engineering company that had declared bankruptcy. The defendants were insurers that had issued a professional liability policy to Stone & Webster. 

Stone & Webster had won a contract from the Maine Yankee to decommission the Maine Yankee nuclear power plant and transform it into a greenfield. However, before the work was completed, Maine Yankee terminated Stone & Webster’s contract.

SWINC claimed that Stone & Webster had failed to comply with its schedule, failed to obtain required permits, and was unable to complete the job on time. The contract specifically provided for termination based on these performance defects, which, the plaintiff said, did in fact occur, and “is precisely the conduct that a professional liability policy is intended to cover.”

The defendants claimed that Stone & Webster’s contract was not terminated because of poor performance, but instead was terminated because of Stone & Webster’s insolvency, and therefore the loss resulting from the termination was not covered by the professional liability policy. Further, according to the defendants, Stone & Webster had misled the insurers as to its financial condition when the policy was issued, which was material because “a contractor that is hurting financially does a bad job.”

Watch the CVN webcast of SWINC v. Lloyds Underwriters.