Verdicts / Settlements - Defendants

Gene Zilinskas and Dagmar Zilinskas v. American Geotechnical, Inc., Gregory Axten, Keith Ehlert and Mohammad Joolazdeh

Fact

In 1964, plaintiffs purchased an undeveloped parcel of land in a canyon in Malibu. Plaintiffs purchased the property without a geologic investigation. In 1980, plaintiffs hired a geological firm to prepare a soils and geologic report in preparation of building a home on the four acre site.

The geologic report discussed a finding that the lower portion of the property was underlain by a prehistoric landsslide, but the construction of a house on the top of the property was considered feasible. Later, another geologist discovered, in about 1985, that the prehistoric landslide had become active. This conclusion was based on movement the geologist recognized on plaintiff's property and on adjacent properties the geologist was also investigating.

The plaintiffs replaced the geologist with another firm, defendants, to make grading recommendations for construction of their new home on top of the hill. The earth removed by the grading was used as fill on the descending slope of the property and compacted to make a level pad for a guest house over the prehistoric landslide.

The grading was completed in 1988 and plaintiffs occupied their new home in 1990. No construction was done on the lower portion of the property. In 1993, heavy rains activated the prehistoric landslide causing a slope failure involving the lower fill pad and approximately two acres of the slope beneath the residence.

Plaintiff Contentions

The plaintiffs brought suit against the geotechnical firm, its president, principal engineer and project geologist for negligence, strict liability, breach of express and implied warranty, breach of contract, and intentional and negligent misrepresentation.

The plaintiffs also contended that the defendants represented themselves as experts and told plaintiffs that they would inspect the subject property and come up with, and supervise, a program to stabilize the hillside.

Defendant Contentions

The defendants contended that Plaintiffs failed to follow all of their grading recommendations, hired an unlicensed general contractor who abandoned the project, hired a concrete subcontractor to perform the hillside grading and were negligent in purchasing the undeveloped lot in an area that was known to be geologically unstable.

Settlement Discussions

The defendants made a C.C.P. §998 offer of $107,000. The plaintiffs made a demand of $250,000 (structured) at the mandatory settlement conference.

Other Information

The plaintiff file a notice of appeal. The defendants were awarded costs and attorney's fees in the amount of $197,736.27 against the plaintiffs.