Independence Harbor Condominium Association v. Hartz Mountain Industries, et al.
Superior Court, Bergen County New Jersey

Facts:

This was a complex construction defect case involving 14 condominium buildings that were built on top of an old Ford Motor Company Plant in Edgewater New Jersey. A portion of the condominium complex was built on a pier that extended out into the Hudson River. The plaintiff was the Condominium Association which sought damages for alleged defects in almost every aspect of the facility fro the timber and concrete substructures up through the roofs of the buildings. The plaintiff's claim was for $66,000,000.00. Our client was the fireproofing subcontractor that applied the fireproofing to the steel columns, beams and girders in the garage area.

Plaintiff’s position:

The plaintiff alleged that the fireproofing material applied in the garage was inappropriate since it could not withstand exposure to water and/or the elements.  In addition, the plaintiff alleged that the fireproofing was incorrectly installed since two different materials were used to encase each steel column, in violation of UL approved tests. As a result, the plaintiff sought damages for the complete removal and replacement of all of the fireproofing in the garage.  Prior to trial, the plaintiff's cost estimate for removing and replacing the fireproofing was $4,158,281.00. In fact, at the time of jury selection and during the course of the trial, the plaintiff's settlement demand to our client was $4,000,000.00.

Client’s position:

Our client’s position was that it had properly installed the fireproofing material that was called for by the design professionals in the plans and specifications.  In fact, the use of two materials to encase each column was called for by the design professionals in the plans and specifications.

Co-defendant (other parties) position – added only if significant:

Our position was supported by the developer, Hart Mountain Industries.

Critical Issues:

Whether our client was negligent in the application of the fireproofing material and whether our client was responsible for the design of the fireproofing system including the selection of the materials.

Result:

After a six month trial, the jury came back with a defense verdict as to our client on the fireproofing issue.  The plaintiff was awarded a total of about $9.3 Million on other aspects of the case. The jury was hung on the biggest elements of the plaintiff's case which accounted for over $40,000,000.00 of the plaintiff's claim.