Construction Litigation

• Ms. Rossi obtained a $1.225 Million settlement in favor of her client, a family-owned land-clearing contractor.  On behalf of her client, Ms. Rossi initiated two lawsuits in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts against two Massachusetts towns, asserting claims for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  The two lawsuits later were consolidated in the Hampden Superior Court in Springfield, Massachusetts.
  Following a devastating ice storm that raged through the Commonwealth, Ms. Rossi’s client was retained by the towns to perform disaster relief services, including the removal and disposal of all debris from town roads as a result of the storm.  While written contracts were in place, and while Ms. Rossi’s client fully performed the services for the towns, her client was not paid at all by one town for its work and was not fully paid by another town for its work.  For over two years, Ms. Rossi steadfastly pursued her client’s claims against the towns, including extensive written discovery, multiple depositions, and multiple motions.  The towns vigorously defended the lawsuits, including asserting twelve counterclaims against Ms. Rossi’s client.  Among other things, the towns argued that the contracts between Ms. Rossi’s client and the towns were invalid due to alleged noncompliance with various Massachusetts competitive bidding statutes and Massachusetts case law that favor municipalities and towns, and that have, historically, enabled towns to avoid contractual responsibilities.  In response, Ms. Rossi argued inapplicability of the statutes and case law, exceptions to the statutes and case law even if they applied and, of course, argued full performance.  Despite the towns’ efforts, Ms. Rossi never wavered in her pursuit of justice for her client.  The claims were resolved at mediation for payment to Ms. Rossi’s client in the total amount of $1.225 Million.
• In a highly adversarial arbitration proceeding in Massachusetts, Ms. Rossi persistently and aggressively pursued claims on behalf of her clients, individuals, against the designer and builder of a luxury prefabricated building component package and involving a multi-million-dollar residence in Connecticut.  The causes of action asserted against the designer and builder included breach of contract, negligence, misrepresentation, fraud, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the Connecticut Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and violation of Massachusetts General Statutes 93A.  The claims against the designer and builder involved two contracts and included claims involving improper installation of Warmboard, windows and window systems, doors, drywall, and rebar in a retaining wall; improperly flashed windows; poorly designed and installed Glulam beams; water leaks; faulty design, measurement, and installation of framing; lack of pressure-treated exterior Glulam beams; lack of anchorage between the second floor and first floor framing; improper structural connections; and other structural integrity issues.   
  Following a week-long arbitration in Boston, Massachusetts before a single arbitrator; direct and cross examination of two general contractor experts, two structural engineer experts, and six fact witnesses; the introduction into evidence of over 200 documentary and electronic exhibits; and the submission of comprehensive, lengthy post-hearing briefs, Ms. Rossi secured a highly favorable Award on behalf of her clients that directed the designer and builder to pay Ms. Rossi’s clients the total amount of $622,187.13.  Given the amount of the Award, Ms. Rossi’s clients fully were reimbursed all monies paid to the designer and builder on this luxury residential construction project. Notably, the Award included expenses associated with temporary housing costs during repairs and expenses incurred as the result of delays in construction.
• Ms. Rossi commenced an arbitration proceeding on behalf of her client, an individual, against a residential new home contractor in Connecticut involving a multi-million-dollar, luxury new home construction in Connecticut.  Causes of action asserted against the contractor included breach of contract, negligence, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  The claims against the contractor included abandonment of the project, leaving the project incomplete and with several construction issues.  Among those issues were extensive site work and drainage issues; standing water conditions; improper installation of limestone on a large patio and walkways; interior taping and painting issues; leaking showers throughout the home; improper floor pitch; and improper installation of Equitone siding, roofline metal edge work, exterior stucco, exterior cedar siding, and interior cedar boards.  Following an 8-day arbitration in New Haven, Connecticut before a single arbitrator; direct and cross examination of two general contractor experts, a landscape contractor expert, a structural engineer expert, and two fact witnesses; the introduction into evidence of over 100 documentary and electronic exhibits; and the submission of comprehensive, lengthy post-hearing briefs, Ms. Rossi secured a highly favorable Award on behalf of her client that directed the contractor to pay Ms. Rossi’s client the total amount of $357,261.64.
• On behalf of her client, a New York based commercial construction general contractor, and in matters involving two large-scale commercial construction projects in Connecticut, Ms. Rossi successfully negotiated resolution of various mechanics liens and thwarted multiple other threats of litigation by subcontractors.
• Ms. Rossi obtained summary judgment on behalf of her client, a Massachusetts family-owned supplier of commercial construction materials and professional engineer stamped shop drawings and calculations.  The lawsuit was filed in the Bridgeport Superior Court in Connecticut against a subcontractor who ordered construction materials from Ms. Rossi’s client and installed the materials on a commercial construction project in Riverside.  The subcontractor did not pay Ms. Rossi’s client for the construction materials, despite the subcontractor being fully paid for the construction materials by the general contractor.
• Ms. Rossi represented a Connecticut general contractor in two consolidated construction litigation lawsuits filed in the Superior Court of New London, Connecticut and involving a multi-million-dollar commercial construction project. The general contractor alleged causes of action for breach of contract, quantum merit, unjust enrichment, tortious interference with business relations, violations of the Connecticut Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), and foreclosure of the general contractor’s Mechanics Lien against the company that owned the property and buildings where the construction project took place and who entered into the Contractor Agreement with Ms. Rossi’s client. Claims for tortious interference with business relations also were asserted against four officers/employees of the Defendant company.
  The Defendant company asserted Counterclaims against Ms. Rossi’s client for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, conversion, civil theft, and violations of CUTPA.
  Ms. Rossi’s in-lieu of appearance in the matters on behalf of the Plaintiff, general contractor was after the lawsuits sat stagnant on the docket for approximately two years. After her appearance in the lawsuits, Ms. Rossi aggressively pursued her client’s claims against the Defendant company and the four individual Defendants, and aggressively defended the counterclaims against her client. After obtaining a Scheduling Order to secure a trial date for these matters, among other things, voluminous discovery was obtained, multiple depositions were conducted, and multiple court conferences and hearings were held. On the same day that trial initially was scheduled, Ms. Rossi negotiated a resolution of the lawsuits that was favorable to her client, the general contractor. The settlement sum is confidential.
• Ms. Rossi represented a Connecticut general contractor who was seeking its retainage from the owner of a large-scale construction project, who failed and/or refused to release the retainage upon completion of the project.  Although the owner sought to have the breach of contract claim stricken on the basis that the contractor had not substantially completed the project by the date stated in the “time is of the essence” clause in the construction contract, the Court denied the owner’s motion on this issue, and agreed with Ms. Rossi that sufficient facts were pled by the general contractor to sustain its breach of contract claim.  The parties proceeded through relatively voluminous discovery and multiple lengthy depositions.  The business day after the discovery deadline expired, Ms. Rossi successfully negotiated a favorable settlement on behalf of her client.  The settlement sum is confidential.
• A subcontractor initiated a lawsuit against Ms. Rossi’s client, the general contractor on a multi-million-dollar public construction project, seeking its retainage.  The subcontractor further sought pre-judgment remedy.  Ms. Rossi vigorously defended her client, asserting, among other things, that the lawsuit was premature in that the construction project was ongoing and no conditions precedent had yet been satisfied so as to cause any retainage to become due or owing to the subcontractor or anyone; that the subcontractor was ill-equipped and did not have sufficient manpower to perform the work, causing delays and excess costs which exceeded the retainage amount claimed by the subcontractor; and that there was no need for a prejudgment remedy because the payment bond provided sufficient insurance.  In addition, Ms. Rossi argued that because the prejudgment remedy was in the form a garnishment sought against a town (the owner of the project) that was holding the retainage monies, no prejudgment remedy could be had under the theory of sovereign immunity.  Following the filing of a motion to strike, the Court agreed with Ms. Rossi that the subcontractor’s claims of unjust enrichment and violation of CUTPA (unfair and deceptive acts and practices) would be stricken. Less than two weeks thereafter, the lawsuit was successfully resolved in its entirety.  The settlement sum is confidential.
• On behalf of homeowners, Ms. Rossi successfully negotiated settlement of claims before litigation was filed against the builder of newly constructed luxury home, involving defects in the hardwood flooring throughout the first and second floors of the residence. The claims asserted included defective material, defective workmanship, improper supervision, breach of contract, breach of warranties, and violation of the Connecticut New Home Warranty Act.
• Following nearly four days of arbitration hearings involving breach of contract and defective construction claims, Ms. Rossi obtained six-figure monetary Award on behalf of clients, homeowners, against a luxury residential home builder in Connecticut.  Among other items, the Award included damages for improper installation of shingles on a low pitch roof; improper installation of underlayment or sub-flooring under limestone tile; and improper construction of an attic dormer, main roof framing, and exterior wall sheathing. In addition, because of the high amount of the Award, the home builder’s claim for payment due under the contract with the homeowners was negated, the lien filed by the builder on the property was released, and the builder was required to pay monetary damages to the homeowners.
• Ms. Rossi successfully challenged the State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health’s investigation of an individual with 36 years of construction and septic system experience, which resulted in closure of the investigation because there was an insufficient basis for the State to proceed further.