Defense Win in Women’s Shelter Construction Defect Case

Kristie Crawford secured a defense verdict for her client, a construction company, in a jury trial in Grundy County, Missouri. The plaintiff contracted with the defendant for the construction of a building that was to be used as a women’s shelter. The plaintiff claimed there were defects in the building after it was completed. Plaintiff claimed building repair costs in excess of $684,480 and diminution in value of the building in the amount of $613,000. The community, including the defendant and its owner, donated funds and time to get the building constructed. Within the first year of completion, cracks were noticed in the walls, and there were issues with doors not closing. Defendant returned to the building and made repairs to the issues that were reported pursuant to the one-year warranty. Plaintiff claimed there were problems with the building thereafter and retained an engineer to inspect the building who determined the reported issues with the building were related to subgrade movement caused by swelling of the subgrade, which caused the floor slab to heave. Plaintiff closed the women’s shelter and did not use it thereafter. Plaintiff filed suit for breach of contract, negligence, breach of warranty, and violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA). At trial, the parties’ retained engineers agreed there were expansive soils under the building that caused the concrete slab to heave upward when the soil became moist. The engineers agreed that soil testing by a geotechnical engineer would have likely identified this condition and a geotechnical engineer could have provided recommendations to address the condition of the soil. The engineers agreed the building was structurally sound but disagreed as to the appropriate scope of repair of the building. A geotechnical engineer had not been retained, and there was a dispute between the parties regarding whether the contract required the defendant to retain a geotechnical engineer and whether defendant was negligent by not recommending that a geotechnical engineer be retained. The jury returned with a verdict for the defense.