Illumina Apartments v. Global Development; Mastro
The Illumina Apartments is a 109 unit, mixed use project consisting of two, six story buildings in Seattle. The Illumina is approximately six years old and contains both office space and apartments overlooking Lake Union. Michael Mastro Sr. oversaw and contracted for the construction of the project. Global Development LLC General Contractors, a company owned and operated by Mr. Mastro’s son, Michael Mastro Jr., constructed the project.
Within months of completion of construction, the project exhibited its first signs of water penetration and failed construction, resulting in damages. The Owners of Illumina Apartments, East Apartments LLC, hired Casey & Skoglund PLLC based on its proven track record in the field of commercial construction litigation, and after East Apartment’s pre-litigation attempts to engage the building seller proved unsuccessful. During the course of litigation, as a result of Mastro Sr.’s involuntary pull into Bankruptcy, Casey & Skoglund PLLC was forced to get creative with their claims against Mastro. This included successfully establishing all actions taken by Mastro Sr. pertaining to the project, and including hiring Global Development for the construction, were done by Mastro as a Member of the Plaintiff, East Apartments LLC. Making this assertion and establishing this fact, successfully pulled the litigation against Mastro out of bankruptcy, where it likely would have sat dormant for six years or more and exhaustion of any potential funds. This resulted in a successful settlement of the claim in an amount in excess of that anticipated by the Plaintiff; the amount necessary to proceed with all of the required repairs and to pay for, in full, all costs and attorney fees incurred during the course of the approximate 14 months of litigation.
2ndStreet LLC v. Mastro Properties; Global Development, et al.
2nd Street is an 82 unit, five story apartment building located in Bellevue. The developer constructed the project using an EIFS exterior barrier system. Developers know, or should know since the mid 90’s that this product simply does not work in the Pacific Northwest. Individual units started experiencing water penetration only one year after construction. The developer, Mr. Mastro, ignored the owner’s plea that comprehensive analysis and repairs be undertaken. After attempting to work with the builder for approximately five years, the owner hired a well known national law firm to assist them. After months of litigation, and after receipt of a 20,000 dollar bill, the owner fired its nationally recognized law firm and hired Casey & Skoglund.
We were able to “convince” the developer to fund a complete “strip and re-clad” (complete removal of all EIFS, building paper and ruined OSB). We “convinced” the developer to pay for all mold remediation and lost income experienced by the owner due to lost rents, including 100% of attorney fees, i.e. more than 3,750,000 dollars.
20th Avenue Ventures, Inc. v. Tepco Premium Finance Company, Cochran & Company and John Evans Insurance Agency
This case involved three insurance companies that simply refused to honor their contract with a commercial building owner. The owner’s building burned and the owner incurred damages exceeding $300,000. The owner retained Casey & Skoglund to assist it in pursuing money promised under relevant insurance policies he purchased. After pursuing simultaneous litigation against three different insurance defense law firms, Casey & Skoglund recovered enough money to perform all of the repairs and reimburse the owner 100% of its investigation costs and attorney fees.
Pacific Center v. Pacific Rim Center LLC, Paul Liao, Darwin Liao and Mei Yea Liao et. al.
The Pacific Center is a six story mixed use building located in Seattle and comprising of condominiums and three floors of commercial space. After dismissing the “big” Seattle law firm representing their interests the owners retained Chase Alvord and Chris Casey and their respective law firms. The multiple Defendants were represented by some of the best construction/contractor defense firms money can buy, Stanislaw & Ashbaugh (now Ashbaugh Beal), Todd & Wakefield, Lee Smart, Lane Powell and Reed McCLure. After establishing the Defendants’ original construction efforts were deficient, and after defeating Defendants’ arguments that statutes of limitation prevented the eight year old claim, the owners prevailed and were successful in obtaining a multimillion dollar settlement, giving them the ability to replace the entire exterior of their 10 year old building with a new exterior envelope, and at no cost, including recovering 100% of Plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs. As with all of our projects, Casey & Skoglund provided the owners post-litigation legal services (negotiating contracts etc.) free of charge.
Lake City Place Apartments v. Hawk Construction LLC and Ready Construction Company
Lake City Place Apartments consists of 39 units and was built in 1996. Shortly after purchasing the investment property the owner engaged defendant Hawk Construction who agreed to remove and replace all of the project’s siding and each of the unit decks. In turn, defendant Hawk employed subcontractor Ready Construction, who agree to provide all labor necessary to perform the work. Shortly after the defendants claimed they completed their contract obligations and after the defendants were paid in full, the project began experiencing water penetration at and around work performed by the defendants. After engaging Casey & Skoglund to assist in recovering the costs associated with defendants’ defective work, Casey & Skoglund moved for a pretrial judgment that the defendants were in violation of their contracts. Casey & Skoglund’s pretrial motion succeeded, resulting in defendants’ early termination of the lawsuit and agreement to pay all costs associated with their defective work, including all of the plaintiff’s attorney fees and investigation and litigation costs.
Edmonds Harbor Inn v. Donahou Design Group, Architects, Danda Corporation of Oregon and Bordak Brothers LLC
Our client, Edmonds Harbor Inn (“EHI”), entered a two million dollar construction contract with Danda Corp. for construction of a three-story, wood framed building EHI intended to utilize as a hotel. In turn, General Contractor Danda Corporation retained numerous subcontractors to assist it with the construction. Approximately three years after completion of construction EHI noted pooling water on decks and additional evidence that the work performed by Danda and its subcontractors may not comply with existing construction standards. After repeated attempts to reach resolution without resorting to litigation failed, EHI retained the services of Casey & Skoglund. With the assistance of C&S, EHI completed comprehensive investigation of the work performed by the Defendants. At the conclusion of the investigation process EHI’s fears that construction defects existed were confirmed. In response to the defects and EHI’s inability to reach resolution with the Defendants, Casey & Skoglund filed a lawsuit against the Defendants on behalf of EHI. After approximately 13 months of tough litigation against three large, well respected and aggressive construction defects law firms, Casey & Skoglund prevailed and obtained a resolution that permitted our client to commence and complete all required repairs.
Shoreline 88 LLC v. Global Development General Contractors LLC and Michael Mastro
This case presented a particular challenge; how to recover against a bankrupt former developer.
Our client, Shoreline 88 LLC, is the owner of an 88 unit, six story apartment building, a/k/a Arabella Apartments.
Arabella Apartments was constructed in 2007. The project was developed by, and construction facilitated through Michael R. Mastro, one of the most powerful and prolific developers in the Pacific Northwest. Mr. Mastro entered a contract with his son’s company, Global Development, to perform the construction of the apartment building. Until 2007 Mr. Mastro was the owner of Shoreline 88 LLC. In 2007 he sold his interest in the LLC and, like clockwork, shortly thereafter the LLC’s apartment building began evidencing signs of poor / defective construction. The defects included standing water on unit decks and the building’s roof, and water penetration at the below grade parking. In response to this discovery Shoreline 88 LLC and its new owners retained Casey & Skoglund. With Casey & Skoglund’s assistance, and after attempts to reach out to the builder / developer failed, Shoreline 88 LLC commissioned a thorough building envelope inspection. At the conclusion of the inspection process, managed by Casey & Skoglund, in addition to confirming the issues with the decks, the building’s roof and the below grade parking, the inspection also identified problems with the project’s windows and doors.
The difficulty with this case is that the typical subject of litigation, the typical “defendant” under these circumstances, is the seller of the LLC, i.e. Michael R. Mastro. The problem was that Mr. Mastro was the subject of the biggest bankruptcy in Washington State’s history. While Casey & Skoglund had every expectation of again convincing a Court and jury that the LLC’s seller / Mr. Mastro should be held liable for the costs of repair, because Mr. Mastro’s assets were tied up in the bankruptcy any victory would, at best, ring hollow. Mr. Mastro’s assets were out of reach. This is where creative advocacy, a hallmark of Casey & Skoglund, comes into play. Instead of suing Mr. Mastro, the LLC’s seller, Casey & Skoglund argued that Mr. Mastro’s contract with his son’s construction company should, instead, be viewed as a contract by and on behalf of Shoreline88 LLC, thereby making Shoreline 88 LLC the proper party to bring a legal action against the builder, Mr. Mastro’s son’s company, Global Development.
IT WORKED.
This case was recently resolved after six days of trial for significantly more than a million dollars. Casey & Skoglund is currently in the process of negotiating / drafting contracts for the repair and refurbishment of Arabella Apartments at no additional charge / cost to our client.
