Grand Junction, CO
Real estate Lawyer at Grand Junction, CO
Practice Areas: Real Estate, Estate Planning ... +2 more
OUTCOME: Judgment Affirmed
A landlord-tenant dispute in which the Plaintiffs-Appellants, Lees, leased their Grand Junction home to our client, Defendant-Appellee, Sutherland. At trial, the court found in favor of Sutherland on ... her counterclaims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, wrongful eviction, conversion, and trespass. Sutherland was also awarded her attorney fees.
OUTCOME: Judgment for Plaintiff
MESA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT Benson Investments, LLC v. Mule-Hide Products Co., Inc. and American Builders d/b/a ABC Supply Co., Inc. Case No: 10-CV-62 Judge: David Bottger Trial Dates: April 22-25 ... 2013 Plaintiff's Attorneys: Annie D. Murphy (Dufford Waldeck Milburn & Krohn, LLP), Grand Junction Defendants' Attorneys: Lance Timbreza and Jason Bailey (Traylor Tompkins & Black, PC), Grand Junction Type of Claim: Manufacture’s Negligence (against Mule-Hide), Breach of express warranty (against Mile-Hide), breach of implied warranty of merchantability (against both defendants) and violation of Magnuson Moss Warranty Act (against Mule-Hide). Benson Investments alleged that it hired a roofing contractor to install Mule-Hide elastomeric acrylic roof coating on a metal roof in order to make the roof leak-proof and to extend its life. The plaintiff alleged that the product did not adhere to the roof, and peeled and bubbled, even after subsequent applications. The roofing contractor, upon the advice of Mule-Hide, installed a complete new re-application of the defendants' roof product in August and September 2009. The plaintiff claimed that the product again failed and it sought damages to repair the roof or to install a new roof and insulation. The defendants denied the plaintiff's allegations. Mule-Hide Products is a roofing supply company and ABC is the parent company of Mule-Hide and is a distributor of Mule-Hide's roofing products. Damages Alleged: $28,000 to repair and rebuild the existing roof or $41,000 to install a brand-new roof and insulation. Final Demand Before Trial: the cost of repairing or replacing the existing roof according to the plaintiff's attorneys. Final Offer Before Trial: $2,000 in 2010 according to the plaintiff's attorneys. Plaintiff's Expert Witnesses: Aaron Robison (roofing contractor), Grand Junction James Edward Benson (inspector of roof and general contractor), Grand Junction Defendants' Expert Witnesses: Graham Abramo, PhD (cause of product failure), Salt Lake City David Schick, Warranty Claims Manager, Mule-Hide Products, Beloit, Wisconsin Verdict: For the plaintiff and against Mule-Hide Products on the breach of express warranty claim. For the defendants and against Mule-Hide Products on the breach of implied warranty claim. For the plaintiff and against Mule-Hide Products on the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim. Judgment entered for the plaintiff and against Mule Hide Products for $27,765. Plaintiff’s claim for manufacturer’s negligence was dismissed upon a motion for directed verdict by Defendants.
OUTCOME: Judgment Affirmed
Whether the attorney fee and interest provision contained at the bottom of a trucking company's invoices bound its client to pay the higher rate of interest and its attorneys fees in collection action. ... 11CA0313 http://www.dwmk.com/uploads/ADM%20Dawn%20Trucking%20Decision.pdf
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
