Biography

Mr. Lahaderne is a retired partner, now serving the firm as Of Counsel, and continues to represent developers, general contractors and specialty subcontractors in all aspects of construction-related litigation, including contract disputes, delay claims and construction defects claims relating to both residential and commercial construction. 

His practice also includes representation of various manufacturers and suppliers of construction-related products in breach of warranty and product failure claims, as well as representation of design professionals such as architects and engineers against claims relating to professional negligence. 

In addition to his litigation practice, Mr. Lahaderne provides counsel to construction firms and design professionals with regard to contract documents and procedures to avoid or minimize liability exposure.

Litigation Matters

Mr. Lahaderne is an ABOTA trial attorney who has tried a significant number of large construction-related claims, including the following:

• Ghilotti Bros. Inc. v. Monahan Pacific: Following a five-week trial, a unanimous jury decision in Marin County Superior Court awarded our client more than $1 million in damages against developers and rejected their cross-complaint against our client for approximately $55 million. The case centered on a subcontract regarding the site work for a 23-lot subdivision located in Larkspur, Calif. In reaching its decision, the jury awarded our client $1,066,385 in damages for breach of contract and rejected the developers’ cross-claim for $5.2 million for alleged incomplete/defective work, $621,000 for liquidated damages and more than $50 million for delay-related damages, including one of the developers’ inability to market the project until 2007, when the economic downturn adversely affected home sales in the residential housing market. 
• Sacramento Suncreek Apartments v. The Randall Group: Sedgwick negotiated a favorable resolution for our client, a developer, in a $17 million action. Our client developed a 268-unit apartment complex in Sacramento. For several years, the project was then maintained by one of the owner’s subsidiaries. In 2000, our client sold the property to the plaintiff for $13.6 million with a disclosure of all known defects and subject to an “as is” clause. The plaintiff intended to upgrade the project and resell it within a three- to four-year period during the “hot” real estate market. Within a year, the plaintiff found a massive mold contamination allegedly due to both original defects and the lack of subsequent maintenance, which required the tenants to vacate the units. The remediation costs exceeded the plaintiff’s financial assets, so it sold the project for $14 million.
  
  The plaintiff then claimed a $1.76 million loss of rental income during its ownership and up to $15 million in loss of anticipated profit. Our defense experts projected the loss to be in the range of $9 million to $10 million.The plaintiff attempted to avoid the “as is” clause by arguing fraudulent concealment of the defects and evidence of water intrusion that led to the mold problem. Sedgwick argued that the maintenance records did not establish the existence of any significant defects or a pattern of water intrusion or potential mold. We also argued that our client had made a full disclosure and that any adverse conditions would have been open and obvious to the plaintiff’s consultants, who had full access to the project during the extended escrow period. Moreover, our experts testified to this fact and that the mold probably appeared after the purchase. At deposition, we were able to elicit testimony from the plaintiff’s experts that supported the defense theory. The plaintiff’s original settlement demand was initially $12 million. After the experts’ depositions, the demand was eventually reduced to a $3 million offer to compromise, but settled for $2.5 million. Our client was pleased with the result.
  
• Carmenson v. Milgard: Sedgwick successfully defeated a motion for class certification, which was affirmed on appeal on behalf of our client, a major manufacturer of aluminum-framed windows. Plaintiffs sought class certification for all California homeowners whose homes contained such windows which were manufactured and installed over a 10-year period, based on the contention that the window products were subject to leakage. Plaintiffs sought the cost to remove and replace over 1.1 million windows installed in over 187,000 homes. The trial court issued its order denying the motion based on the fact that the plaintiffs had not established a common defect in the products or commonality of issues, which was affirmed on appeal. 
• Academy of Art v. Olympic Club and Plant Construction: We represented the general contractor for the Olympic Club addition, located on Nob Hill in San Francisco. The project required a 65’ excavation below street level, which was then the deepest excavation in San Francisco history. The Academy of Art owned an adjacent building, which was used as a dormitory, and alleged that our client had performed the underpinning and shoring in a negligent manner, resulting in structural damage to its building and necessitating evacuation of the student tenants. The Academy of Art claimed damages in excess of $3 million. After a 15 day court trial, the court found in favor of the defendants and denied all of the Academy of Art’s claims and awarded defendants their fees and costs.
• Rancho Solano Masters Association v. Kiewit Pacific Company: We represented KPC, the mass grading subcontractor for a 500-unit residential subdivision against claims that it failed to properly remediate 26 preexisting landslide areas during construction and that such areas had experienced or would experience soil subsidence, for which the cost of repair was in excess of $15 million. After a 10-week trial, the Court granted KPC’s motion for a directed verdict, finding that the evidence established that KPC had performed all slide repairs pursuant to the plans and specifications and the soils engineers’ directives. In addition, the Court awarded KPC its attorneys’ fees and costs from the developer/general contractor, which had brought a cross-complaint against KPC for express contractual indemnification.
• Montgomery Washington Towers Association v. Crow-Spieker: We represented the developer of 30 luxury condominium units atop a 26-story high rise in downtown San Francisco. Plaintiffs alleged significant water intrusion problems relating to the design and construction of the roofs, penthouse decks, 40 private balcony decks, the travertine exterior and related ceiling systems and HVAC system. The Association sought in excess of $8 million and a finding of punitive damages against our clients for alleged breach of fiduciary duty.
  
  At trial, we admitted liability for deficiencies in the deck systems with a cost of repair of $980,000, but rejected all of plaintiffs’ other claims. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Association for $1 million based upon the defense repair figures and rejected all of the Association’s claims. After reduction for the comparative fault of the Architect and General Contractor, Crow-Spieker’s proportionate share of liability was only $330,000.
• AIMCO (Apartment Investment and Management Company) Class Action: We represented AIMCO, a property management firm that either owns or manages more than 400 residential properties throughout the United States. We defended AIMCO against claims by more than 100 plaintiffs, involving alleged water intrusion, related toxic mold contamination and other alleged deficiencies. We have taken the two lead cases to trial with the following results:
  o Clayton v. AIMCO: Plaintiff sought damages for malicious prosecution, discrimination and breach of the implied warranty of habitability for alleged deficiencies in her unit. The jury returned a defense verdict.
  o Roan v. AIMCO: The Roan family sought damages for bodily injury and emotional distress for admitted mold contamination in their unit, disability discrimination, retaliation and habitability issues. The defense was complicated by the fact that the Roan’s 13-year-old daughter had an open tracheotomy due to a pre-existing condition. The jury rejected their claim for damages in excess of $200,000 and awarded them $7,700, which is offset by our client’s recoverable costs.
  o We were thereafter able to obtain dismissals or settlements of the remaining tenants’ claims on a favorable basis.
  
  
• Bayview Hunters Point Apartments, et. al. v. Colorworks: We represented AIMCO’s partnerships in litigation brought against the general contractor and its subcontractors in order to recover the cost of repairs to defective work performed on AIMCO’s four apartment complexes. We ultimately settled the client’s claims on a favorable basis, receiving more than $10 million.
• Colina Association v. Pearson & Johnson: We represented a liability carrier for a general contractor performing remedial work on a condominium development when unseasonable rains caused water intrusion through decks under repair, resulting in significant property damage necessitating asbestos abatement and occupant relocation. The carrier settled the HOA’s claims and sought reimbursement for a portion of its costs.

We admitted that the General Contractor had significant liability exposure, but argued that the repair architect and subcontractors bore partial responsibility due to concurrent design and construction errors. Our pretrial demand was $1 million, with no offer from the defendants. After one week of trial, the Architect and five of seven subcontractors settled for $770,000. We proceeded against the remaining defendants and obtained a $440,000 judgment, with an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
• Deer Valley Associates v. UDC Homes: We represented the developer of a residential subdivision against claims by the owner of a downhill commercial property that alleged deficiencies in the design and construction of the drainage system of a fill slope resulted in the failure of the plaintiff’s soldier-pile shoring system and saturation of its subgrade. Plaintiff sought damages in excess of $1.2 million. We admitted that there were deficiencies in the drainage system, but contended that our client’s liability should only be in the range of $350,000 - $370,000 and that the remainder of plaintiff’s damages were due to its own negligent construction activities. The Court accepted our argument and awarded plaintiff $370,000.

In addition to these representative trials, Mr. Lahaderne has also successfully negotiated numerous settlements in cases brought against developers, general contractors, specialty subcontractors and design professionals for construction-related claims involving allegations of construction defects, A&E errors and omissions, construction delay and personal injury matters.

Presentations & Publications

• Construction Defects Litigation Protocol - JAMS (Judicial Arbitration & Mediation Services
• Seminar On Construction Defects Litigation - John R. Griffiths, Special Master
• Insurance Coverage For Defective Construction - ABA, Tort & Insurance Practice Section
• Public Contracting in California - ABA, Tort & Insurance Practice Section
• Building Envelope Semester - Simpson Gumpertz & Heger
• Construction Defects Roundtable - JAMS
• Construction Litigation - CEB Seminar
• Using Petrography in Concrete Testing - CSI/Concrete Research Group
• Panelist - Construction Defense Litigation (including author of workshop article: “Statute of Limitations in Construction Litigation”)
• Guest Speaker - Effective Use of Demonstrative Evidence in Construction Cases, presented to Westcon & Alameda County Bar Association

Memberships & Honors

Mr. Lahaderne is a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA), and the Association of Defense Counsel of Northern California.

While attending law school, he was a member of the Moot Court Board.