GIBSON|LAW
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Litigation and Trial Experience – Representative
Case Summaries
I. Some examples of Mr. Gibson’s experience with IAQ and
mold issues and cases include, among others: 1
Mr. Gibson successfully represented the Owner (Condominium Association)
against the developer and the companies involved in the design and
construction of the project. The lawsuit resulted in a seven figure settlement
for the Owner client.
___________________________
1. Some of the case summaries have been edited due to client
confidentiality/confidentiality agreement/court order, etc.
Mr. Gibson successfully defended the mechanical engineering client.
Mr. Gibson successfully defended the only entities involved in the design and
construction process (the architect and structural engineer) that did not suffer a
defeat to Owner. The case was tried before a jury in Federal Court. The jury
awarded the architect client a defense verdict.
Original building cost: $11 million.
Remediation costs (including attorney’s fees and costs): $26 million.
Mr. Gibson successfully defended the only three entities involved in the design
and construction process (architect, structural engineer and electrical
engineer) that did not suffer a defeat to Martin County, and in the process made
Martin County pay the clients’ attorney’s fees. All of the other Defendant
companies in the design and construction process (including sureties and
insurance companies) either settled with (paid money to) Martin County, had
judgments entered against them at trial, or declared bankruptcy.
Mr. Gibson also later successfully defended the Project architect against
multiple personal injury lawsuits arising from this Project.
Mr. Gibson successfully defended the mechanical engineering client, and in
the process helped to provide “guidance” to the School Board on deficiency
issues relating to the HVAC control systems that were the primary causal
agents that led to the IAQ/comfort problems in the buildings. The School
Board, thereafter, sought and obtained a “significant” settlement from the
general contractor and the HVAC controls supplier, in addition to replacement
of certain HVAC controls components and related remediation services.
The commercial claims were resolved at mediation of over $18 million. The
personal injury plaintiffs received of $3 million in settlements. Mr. Gibson
successfully defended the mechanical engineering client, and in the process
was successful in reaching a global de minimus settlement for the client of all
claims against the client for under $50,000.
___________________________________
2. Of note is that approximately 15 years later Mr. Gibson
represented the then anchor tenant for the same building when
similar IAQ and mold issues again arose. Mr. Gibson successfully
negotiated a settlement between the building owner/landlord and the
anchor tenant client which resulted in not only making the anchor
tenant client whole, but also in minimizing the exposure of
both the building owner/landlord and the anchor tenant client to OSHA
sanctions, and potential personal injury and worker’s compensation
lawsuits.
Mr. Gibson successfully defended the mechanical engineering client, and in
the process was successful in reaching a global de minimus settlement all
claims against the client for approximately $2,000 per plaintiff.
After being retained, Mr. Gibson quickly retained two well-respected IAQ testing
firms that independently reviewed the initial IAQ testing report and supporting
data, and conducted site investigations of their own. Thereafter, Mr. Gibson set
up a meeting involving all of the experts to “review” their respective findings,
and to attempt to reach a joint consensus of opinion(s). Once the initial IAQ
expert heard the analyses of the other two experts (which were based upon
American indoor quality standards), the initial expert retracted its report and
findings, and submitted a revised report that essentially agreed with the other
two experts. Mr. Gibson was also successful in convincing the plaintiffs that
the alleged IAQ problems were actually design problems.
Mr. Gibson successfully defended the general contractor client, and in the
process, was successful in reaching a global de minimus settlement of all
claims against the client for $10,000. The property manager, the developer
and its design team ultimately settled all claims against those parties for what
was reported to be a “very large” sum.
II. Some examples of Mr. Gibson’s experience with general
construction and design defect and delay damages cases,
include, among others:
Mr. Gibson successfully defended the civil engineering client. The case was
tried before a Panel of very experienced construction arbitrators in Federal
Court. The Plaintiff dredging contractor received an award of only $26,000, a
sum that was only a small fraction of the Plaintiff dredging contractor's claims.
Mr. Gibson successfully defended all claims against the City. On the eve of
Trial, Mr. Gibson was successful in obtaining a summary judgment
exonerating the City of any fault for the General Contractor’s alleged delay
damages.
Mr. Gibson successfully defended all claims against Sprint. Mr. Gibson was
successful in convincing all parties in the dispute that Sprint had no fault for
the General Contractor’s alleged delay damages.
Mr. Gibson successfully defended all claims against the MEP engineer, with
the MEP engineer paying only a de minimus settlement amount at
mediation.
Mr. Gibson successfully defended all claims against the MEP engineer,
including a dismissal of all subrogation claims asserted against the MEP
engineer by the builder’s risk insurance carrier.
Mr. Gibson successfully defended all claims against the architect client. Mr.
Gibson was successful in obtaining a summary judgment exonerating the
architect client of any fault for the wrongful death of the six year old boy, and thus
avoiding potential criminal and administrative actions against the unlicensed
(in Florida) Texas architect client had they been found to be in any way
responsible for the death of the six year old boy.
© 2019 GIBSON|LAW
Case Summaries
I. Some examples of Mr. Gibson’s experience with IAQ and
mold issues and cases include, among others: 1
 | “_________” Condominiums. Water intrusion and IAQ case | |
| involving defective design and construction of the exterior wall systems of a large multi-building condominium project which led to water intrusion problems, structural damages, and extensive mold and IAQ issues. These issues resulted in the partial evacuation of the project, the total remediation of the exterior wall systems; the removal, replacement, and upgrade of some of the HVAC systems, as well as the replacement of many of the interior finishes, including drywall, carpeting, and ceiling components, and the remediation of the IAQ and mold issues. |
Mr. Gibson successfully represented the Owner (Condominium Association)
against the developer and the companies involved in the design and
construction of the project. The lawsuit resulted in a seven figure settlement
for the Owner client.
___________________________
1. Some of the case summaries have been edited due to client
confidentiality/confidentiality agreement/court order, etc.
| Harbor House Luxury Apartment Tower. Nationally known | |
| mold and IAQ case involving alleged inadequate outdoor air ventilation, and extensive mold, mildew and water intrusion problems that resulted in the complete evacuation of the building. There were numerous lawsuits filed as a result of these issues. One of the lawsuits was the first mold class action lawsuit certified in the United States. The commercial and personal injury claims were alleged to be over $1 billion. After the project was evacuated, the project underwent a remediation of the exterior wall systems; the removal, replacement, and upgrade of the HVAC and electrical systems; the replacement of many of the interior finishes, including drywall, carpeting, and ceiling components; and the remediation of the IAQ and mold issues. The mechanical engineering client was alleged to have improperly designed the HVAC systems. |
Mr. Gibson successfully defended the mechanical engineering client.
| WFLA TV Station. Case involving alleged extensive mold, mildew | |
| and water intrusion problems resulting from cracks in the poured-in-place reinforced concrete exterior wall systems of the five-story building. These issues resulted in the partial evacuation of the project, the coating of the exterior wall systems with a reinforced coating system, as well as the replacement of some of the interior finishes, including drywall, carpeting, and ceiling components. |
| Original building cost: $30 million. |
| Remediation costs (including attorney’s fees and costs): $7 million. |
Mr. Gibson successfully defended the only entities involved in the design and
construction process (the architect and structural engineer) that did not suffer a
defeat to Owner. The case was tried before a jury in Federal Court. The jury
awarded the architect client a defense verdict.
| Martin County Courthouse. Nationally known IAQ case involving | |
| alleged inadequate outdoor air ventilation, and extensive mold, mildew and water intrusion problems. These issues resulted in the total evacuation of the project; the remediation of the exterior wall systems (EFIS wall system); the removal, replacement, and upgrade of the HVAC and electrical systems; as well as the complete replacement of all interior finishes, including drywall, carpeting, and ceiling components. |
Original building cost: $11 million.
Remediation costs (including attorney’s fees and costs): $26 million.
Mr. Gibson successfully defended the only three entities involved in the design
and construction process (architect, structural engineer and electrical
engineer) that did not suffer a defeat to Martin County, and in the process made
Martin County pay the clients’ attorney’s fees. All of the other Defendant
companies in the design and construction process (including sureties and
insurance companies) either settled with (paid money to) Martin County, had
judgments entered against them at trial, or declared bankruptcy.
Mr. Gibson also later successfully defended the Project architect against
multiple personal injury lawsuits arising from this Project.
| “________” County Public Schools. IAQ case involving alleged | |
| humidity and temperature control problems relating to the upgraded HVAC systems of a number of buildings on the school campus. Mechanical engineering client was alleged to have improperly designed the HVAC systems, and to have allowed improper value engineering of the HVAC systems. |
Mr. Gibson successfully defended the mechanical engineering client, and in
the process helped to provide “guidance” to the School Board on deficiency
issues relating to the HVAC control systems that were the primary causal
agents that led to the IAQ/comfort problems in the buildings. The School
Board, thereafter, sought and obtained a “significant” settlement from the
general contractor and the HVAC controls supplier, in addition to replacement
of certain HVAC controls components and related remediation services.
| “________” Bank Building.2 IAQ case involving alleged | |
| inadequate outdoor air ventilation, and extensive mold, mildew and water intrusion problems. These issues resulted in the complete evacuation of the building, and the removal, replacement, and upgrade of the HVAC systems, as well as the replacement of certain interior finishes, including drywall, carpeting, and ceiling components. Mechanical engineering client was alleged to have improperly designed the HVAC systems and to have allowed improper value engineering of the HVAC systems. Claims involved business interruption, constructive eviction of commercial tenants, and personal injuries to 12 plaintiffs (bank employees and their spouses (consortium claims)). Most of the plaintiffs had extensive medical expenses allegedly relating to the IAQ problems. |
The commercial claims were resolved at mediation of over $18 million. The
personal injury plaintiffs received of $3 million in settlements. Mr. Gibson
successfully defended the mechanical engineering client, and in the process
was successful in reaching a global de minimus settlement for the client of all
claims against the client for under $50,000.
___________________________________
2. Of note is that approximately 15 years later Mr. Gibson
represented the then anchor tenant for the same building when
similar IAQ and mold issues again arose. Mr. Gibson successfully
negotiated a settlement between the building owner/landlord and the
anchor tenant client which resulted in not only making the anchor
tenant client whole, but also in minimizing the exposure of
both the building owner/landlord and the anchor tenant client to OSHA
sanctions, and potential personal injury and worker’s compensation
lawsuits.
| “_________” County Public Schools. IAQ case involving | |
| alleged inadequate outdoor air / toxic vapor (water treatment chemicals from an associated leaking ice storage system) problems relating to the HVAC systems of a number of buildings on the school campus. Mechanical engineering client was alleged to have improperly designed the HVAC systems and to have allowed improper value engineering of the HVAC systems. Claims involved personal injuries to 34 plaintiffs (students and their parents (consortium claims)). The case was particularly troublesome because it involved elementary school children, and the fact that an apparent disgruntled “environmental administrator” for the School Board had “admitted” that the IAQ problems at the school had been “known” for years but that the School Board had failed to properly remediate the problems. Several of the plaintiffs had extensive medical expense allegedly relating to the IAQ problems. One plaintiff’s medical expenses were well over $1 million. |
Mr. Gibson successfully defended the mechanical engineering client, and in
the process was successful in reaching a global de minimus settlement all
claims against the client for approximately $2,000 per plaintiff.
| “_______” Luxury Apartments. IAQ case involving alleged | |
| inadequate outdoor air/toxic vapor (formaldehyde) problems relating to the HVAC systems and mill work within all of the apartment buildings. General contractor client was alleged to have improperly constructed the HVAC systems and to have allowed the installation of improper (high formaldehyde) mill work in the apartment buildings. Claims involved personal injuries to several plaintiffs (apartment occupants). The case was particularly troublesome because it involved an “admission” by the property manager that the IAQ problems in the buildings had been “known” for quite some time but that the property management company had failed to properly remediate the problems. Additionally, and also unfortunately, prior to our involvement in the case, the client had retained and “IAQ expert” that had opined (based upon Canadian indoor air quality standards) that the levels of formaldehyde shown in the air samples taken in the buildings were “excessive”. Prior to our involvement in the case, this report was provided to the property manager, an apartment owner, and several local building and health officials. Several of the plaintiffs had extensive medical expenses allegedly relating to the IAQ problems, and were claiming damages, including constructive eviction from their apartments. |
After being retained, Mr. Gibson quickly retained two well-respected IAQ testing
firms that independently reviewed the initial IAQ testing report and supporting
data, and conducted site investigations of their own. Thereafter, Mr. Gibson set
up a meeting involving all of the experts to “review” their respective findings,
and to attempt to reach a joint consensus of opinion(s). Once the initial IAQ
expert heard the analyses of the other two experts (which were based upon
American indoor quality standards), the initial expert retracted its report and
findings, and submitted a revised report that essentially agreed with the other
two experts. Mr. Gibson was also successful in convincing the plaintiffs that
the alleged IAQ problems were actually design problems.
Mr. Gibson successfully defended the general contractor client, and in the
process, was successful in reaching a global de minimus settlement of all
claims against the client for $10,000. The property manager, the developer
and its design team ultimately settled all claims against those parties for what
was reported to be a “very large” sum.
II. Some examples of Mr. Gibson’s experience with general
construction and design defect and delay damages cases,
include, among others:
| Lockheed – Astronaut’s Turning Basin. Multi-party delay case | |
| involving an a alleged erroneous pre-dredge hydrographic survey that the dredging contractor alleged resulted in significant damages to its dredging equipment, and delay-related damages in the millions of dollars. Civil engineering client was alleged to have generated an erroneous hydrographic survey that reportedly failed to properly depict the location of the actual navigable waterways of the canals and turning basin wherein the Space Shuttle’s solid rocket boosters are transported and recovered for over-land transport and refurbishment by NASA. |
Mr. Gibson successfully defended the civil engineering client. The case was
tried before a Panel of very experienced construction arbitrators in Federal
Court. The Plaintiff dredging contractor received an award of only $26,000, a
sum that was only a small fraction of the Plaintiff dredging contractor's claims.
| City of Kissimmee – U.S 192 Widening. Multi-party delay case | |
| involving the widening of U.S. 192 in Kissimmee, Florida, a Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Project. General contractor claimed over $25 Million in delay-related damages allegedly arising from unforeseen subsurface conditions, erroneous subsurface utility surveys, design deficiencies, and active interference of the various parties and governmental entities involved in the Project. Mr. Gibson represented the governmental owner and utility client, City of Kissimmee. |
Mr. Gibson successfully defended all claims against the City. On the eve of
Trial, Mr. Gibson was successful in obtaining a summary judgment
exonerating the City of any fault for the General Contractor’s alleged delay
damages.
| City of Ocoee – SR 50 Widening. Multi-party delay case | |
| involving the widening of SR 50 in Ocoee, Florida, a Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Project. General contractor claimed over $15 Million in delay-related damages allegedly arising from unforeseen subsurface conditions, erroneous subsurface utility surveys, design deficiencies, and active interference of the various parties and governmental entities involved in the Project. Mr. Gibson represented a utility client, Sprint. |
Mr. Gibson successfully defended all claims against Sprint. Mr. Gibson was
successful in convincing all parties in the dispute that Sprint had no fault for
the General Contractor’s alleged delay damages.
| Lincoln Elementary School, Broward County, Florida. | |
| Multi-party delay case involving the construction of Lincoln Elementary School in Broward County, Florida. General contractor claimed over $12 Million in delay-related damages allegedly arising from design deficiencies, and active interference of the various parties and governmental involved in the Project. The majority of the general contractor’s claims involved alleged design deficiencies in tilt-wall exterior wall panels for the multi-story buildings, and the MEP systems therein. Mr. Gibson represented the MEP engineer. |
Mr. Gibson successfully defended all claims against the MEP engineer, with
the MEP engineer paying only a de minimus settlement amount at
mediation.
| Morton Plant Hospital, Clearwater, Florida. Multi-party delay | |
| case involving the construction of new campus-wide domestic, hot water, gas and steam piping systems and tunnels for Morton Plant Hospital in Clearwater, Florida. The total of all parties’ claims were over $20 Million in defect and delay-related damages allegedly arising from design and construction deficiencies, and active interference of the various parties and governmental entities involved in the Project. The majority of the claims arose from the total failure of the insulated steam piping system. Mr. Gibson represented the MEP engineer. |
Mr. Gibson successfully defended all claims against the MEP engineer,
including a dismissal of all subrogation claims asserted against the MEP
engineer by the builder’s risk insurance carrier.
| Elevator Death Case. Wrongful death action involving the | |
| decapitation of a six year old boy in the elevator of a three story home in Santa Rosa Beach (Pensacola), Florida. Plaintiff parents alleged that design, manufacturing and construction deficiencies in the elevator safety/control systems, as well as the elevator cab, shaft and exterior (building) doorways, produced a “trap” for persons using the elevator, and were significant violations of both the Life Safety Code and Elevator Safety Code. Unlicensed (in Florida) Texas architect client (who had no MEP engineering consultants) was alleged to have wrongfully approved the elevator-related shop drawings and submittals, and to have designed an elevator shaft and interior (building) doorways that were, in part, the cause of the accident. The case has been reported to be the largest recovery in a child wrongful death case in the history of the State of Florida. |
Mr. Gibson successfully defended all claims against the architect client. Mr.
Gibson was successful in obtaining a summary judgment exonerating the
architect client of any fault for the wrongful death of the six year old boy, and thus
avoiding potential criminal and administrative actions against the unlicensed
(in Florida) Texas architect client had they been found to be in any way
responsible for the death of the six year old boy.
© 2019 GIBSON|LAW
GIBSON|LAW
Experience
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
