Plaintiff James Bannie submits this letter in compliance with the Court’s request to submit a summary of the merits of each case prior to the May 1, 2017 conference with the parties. This letter outlines Mr. Bannie’s theory of the case, the status of settlement negotiations, and the benefits and drawbacks of resolving this case prior to trial.
This is a construction defect case, Mr. Bannie hired SMS Construction, LLC to serve as the general contractor of the construction project. There are numerous documents which support the argument that SMS Construction was legally the acting general contractor and not Mr. Bannie as has been alleged by Defendant.
Mr. Bannie moved into the home with his wife and young child and detected issues with the homes construction. In Summary, the house experienced water intrusion around the windows and doors. Cracks began to form in the title along the wall and ceilings. Mr. Bannie contacted Scott Soika, owner of SMS about the issues. Mr. Soika responded that he would not complete anymore work on the home. …show more content…
Bannie now brings this suit to enforce the contract between himself and SMS Construction. He also brings a negligence claim against SMS Construction for failure to construct his home in a good and workmanlike manner.
Counsel for the parties have conferred extensively about settling this claim. …show more content…
However, it would be financially beneficial to Mr. Bannie to settle this case without incurring additional legal expenses. If Mr. Bannie choses to accept Mr. Soika’s offer to complete additional work on the home it is beneficial that his crucial repairs will be made to the property. However, there are many challenges to this proposal as Mr. Bannie does not trust Mr. Soika’s quality of work and therefore does not want him doing any further construction on the
This is a construction defect case, Mr. Bannie hired SMS Construction, LLC to serve as the general contractor of the construction project. There are numerous documents which support the argument that SMS Construction was legally the acting general contractor and not Mr. Bannie as has been alleged by Defendant.
Mr. Bannie moved into the home with his wife and young child and detected issues with the homes construction. In Summary, the house experienced water intrusion around the windows and doors. Cracks began to form in the title along the wall and ceilings. Mr. Bannie contacted Scott Soika, owner of SMS about the issues. Mr. Soika responded that he would not complete anymore work on the home. …show more content…
Bannie now brings this suit to enforce the contract between himself and SMS Construction. He also brings a negligence claim against SMS Construction for failure to construct his home in a good and workmanlike manner.
Counsel for the parties have conferred extensively about settling this claim. …show more content…
However, it would be financially beneficial to Mr. Bannie to settle this case without incurring additional legal expenses. If Mr. Bannie choses to accept Mr. Soika’s offer to complete additional work on the home it is beneficial that his crucial repairs will be made to the property. However, there are many challenges to this proposal as Mr. Bannie does not trust Mr. Soika’s quality of work and therefore does not want him doing any further construction on the