Duane E. Shinnick

In order of importance: 1. Cost of Repair Report was never issued without specific requests; at the final settlement meeting, plaintiffs in audience, myself included, brought it to their attention and requested it. This item was initially discovered via a conversation I had with an associate partn...er a year earlier and was crucial to the decision making process by plaintiffs and without it, it was next to impossible. The final settlement checks issued to plaintiffs varied, but in general, it was 1/3 of the cost to correct as to what their “experts” said needed correcting [specifically, our settlement was 35.3% of the Cost of Repair Report]. In fairness, the majority was happy with that; with my background, it was folly. 2. Water meter and its associated line to main house shut off was never inspected, which fell within all plaintiffs’ property line. Senior partner Shinnick stated upon the last settlement meeting upon my questioning of this item to him, that since there were no complaints about it leaking to his firm, that they did not inspect it [say what?!]. However, I told them I had three [3] homes in the track that specifically had this issue that cost them out of pocket [unfortunately, none were in this lawsuit]. That information was gained by myself door knocking, as his firm implied that I do so when I initially brought this to the firm’s attention i.e. they would not spend the time investigating this item themselves. Regrettable for all 131 plaintiffs involved, we will be responsible for this item in the future at our own personal expense, which was not included in our settlement. 3. Their “experts" missed a critical "union" connection at the water heater that an independent expert of this plaintiff pointed out to them and they later scrambled to shore up that misstep. When I pushed them several times on this expensive repair [potentially all water heaters were infected due to this galvanized union], this is what the Senior Partner sent to me: Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 Subject: RE: PIPING ISSUE 3 No leak information has been provided or confirmed and we are not going on a wild goose chase again. I prefer not to use such strong language but apparently our message is not getting through to you. We will not be responding to any more of your emails on this issue. 4. When I asked this question in an email dated 10.22.2013 to their firm about why the sewer odors from two [2] north and south treatment facilities were not addressed in this lawsuit, this was their answer: “The issue regarding the foul odor/ location of homes between sewer treatment facilities is not part of our representation in the construction defect case. You should seek other counsel on that issue.” That is, this issue was not under the construction lawsuit umbrella, but outside the scope of their case. I said, “Seek outside counsel? That is why we have hired you…. for latent issues!” 5. Critical pictures of roofing withheld until asked for several times, which was one of several high end item costs to plaintiffs; virtually all plaintiffs never received this, to which I wish them well when they call out a phone book roofer. 6. Associate said would provide list of contractors that plaintiffs could use after settlement at beginning of lawsuit, but reneged later on specific request for that list at last settlement meeting by Senior Partner. 7. $1,965,000 was the total settlement; $902,000 was in legal [$590,000] and expert witness fees [$312,000] = 46% or a 54% balance for plaintiffs. 8. Emails ignored countless times and had to follow up one or more on each to acquire a reply; no one appreciates chasing after anyone on paid for professional services rendered, especially when they are receiving professional help, guidance and information gratis.