PB Ocean Condos v. KDTD: $1.4M Construction Defects Settlement
Table of Contents
Case Background
PB Ocean Condos, LLC, a California limited liability company, filed a construction defects lawsuit against KDTD, Inc. dba KD Development on September 18, 2024, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. The case was assigned to Judge Blaine K. Bowman in Department C-74.
Cause
The dispute arose from a construction contract dated March 22, 2018, where PB Ocean Condos engaged KDTD as the general contractor to build a 16-unit apartment project at 4253 Mission Boulevard, San Diego, California. The project consisted of approximately 28,000 square feet of living space and 5,000 square feet of commercial space. The Plaintiff alleged that KDTD failed to perform its contractual duties to the required standards, which resulted in multiple construction defects throughout the property.
Injury
The Plaintiff discovered numerous construction defects and resulting damage to the structure. The defects included flat roof inadequately sloped, excessive stucco cracking, waterproof delamination at balcony deck, joint separation at gypsum wallboard, concrete cracks at garage ceiling with efflorescence, window leaks, door leaks, corroded and deteriorated HVAC systems, excessive concrete cracks, water intrusion at garage ceiling, stormwater intrusion at first floor commercial space, reverse slope at concrete entryways directing water toward the structure, and planters with negative grade toward the building foundation.
Damages Sought
The Plaintiff sought general damages in excess of $750,000, interest on all sums awarded at the maximum legal rate, pre-judgment interest, professional and technical fees and costs, and costs of suit.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: PB Ocean Condos, LLC
· Counsel for Plaintiff: William H. Naumann, Esq. | Loren K. Shiu, Esq.
Defendant: KDTD, Inc. dba KD Development, a California Corporation
· Counsel for Defendant: J. Daniel Lounsbery | Matthew Gunby | John M. Turner
Claims
Negligence: The Plaintiff alleged that KDTD and the subcontractor Defendants owed a legal duty to exercise reasonable care in performing their construction work. The Plaintiff claimed the Defendants knew or should have known that the property owner would suffer damages if they failed to perform their duties in a competent manner. The Defendants allegedly performed their work negligently by failing to adequately inspect, oversee, and coordinate the work among various parties involved in construction.
Breach of Express Warranty: Under the construction contract, KDTD warranted that it would complete the work in a good and workmanlike manner and that the work would be free of defects. The Plaintiff alleged KDTD breached this express warranty by failing to retain competent subcontractors and failing to provide adequate supervision for the work performed at the property.
Breach of Implied Warranty: The Plaintiff claimed that by undertaking the construction contract, KDTD impliedly warranted that the work would be completed in a reasonably workmanlike manner and in accordance with plans and specifications. The Plaintiff asserted the Defendants failed to meet these implied standards.
Breach of Contract: The Plaintiff alleged KDTD breached the construction contract by failing to properly supervise and direct construction work, failing to identify errors or omissions on design plans, and failing to perform all construction work in a workmanlike manner within industry standards.
Defense
KDTD filed its answer on December 4, 2024, through Kahana Feld LLP. The Defendant issued a general denial of all allegations and asserted 44 affirmative defenses. The defense argued the Plaintiff failed to state facts sufficient to support a cause of action and claimed the Plaintiff failed to take reasonable steps to avoid damages. KDTD contended that any liability should be attributed to the acts or omissions of other parties, including intervening and superseding actions of third parties. The Defendant maintained it exercised reasonable care throughout the project and did not know, nor could have known, of the alleged conditions. The defense further argued the Plaintiff was comparatively at fault and failed to mitigate damages. KDTD asserted lack of notice of any defects within the warranty period and claimed it substantially complied with contract terms. The Defendant also raised defenses of laches, waiver, unclean hands, assumption of risk, and equitable estoppel. KDTD demanded a jury trial.
Settlement
The parties reached a settlement agreement. KDTD, Inc. dba KD Development agreed to pay PB Ocean Condos, LLC the sum of $1,400,000 to resolve all claims arising from the construction defects alleged in the lawsuit. The settlement resolved the Plaintiff's claims for negligence, breach of express warranties, breach of implied warranties, and breach of contract related to the construction of the apartment project at 4253 Mission Boulevard, San Diego, California.
Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com