My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7/14/1992
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1992
>
7/14/1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:32 PM
Creation date
6/8/2015 10:53:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/14/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
73
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
[JUL 14 9 <br />Defendants, and might preclude us from recovering against them. <br />The County Attorney agreed that he would move for a partial Summary <br />Judgment on liability and that Schopke Construction would not oppose <br />the Summary Judgment. the Court would then determine the issue of <br />liability. At the meeting, the County Attorney was advised that the <br />Third -Party Defendants would certainly argue against the entry of a <br />partial Summary Judgment and that Schopke Construction had no control <br />over the Third -Party Defendants. That is, in fact, what happened. <br />The Third -Party Defendants argued against the Summary Judgment and <br />it was denied. We,. however, fulfilled our agreement in every way <br />as we said we would. <br />The County Attorney has now changed his mind once again requesting <br />that we admit liability by Stipulation which we still cannot do for <br />the reasons outlined above. The County Attorney has advised Schopke <br />Construction that if it does not admit liability then he will take <br />the matter to the County Commission and have Schopke Construction <br />barred from further work with Indian River County. <br />I am incensed by his tactics ,in that every person is entitled to <br />their day in Court. Schopke Construction has enjoyed a long history <br />with Indian River County, and has built many successful projects <br />for the County. It is unfortunate that there is a problem with the <br />elecontronics in Phase II. However, Schopke Construction is doing <br />all that it can in that case to get a settlement and satisfaction <br />from the parties that are responsible. To require Schopke Construction <br />to admit liability or be barred from any further construction contracts <br />with Indian River County is totally unjust and unfair and I hope that <br />You will not take the action that is requested by the County Attorney. <br />Enclosed is a copy of the hold -harmless letter from Integon's <br />attorney. It is specific concerning the reservation of rights and <br />specifically why Schopke Construction cannot do what the County Attorney <br />demands. <br />We sincerely hope* you will allow us our day in Court. <br />Sincerely, <br />SCH RUCTION <br />Neil SchopP.E. <br />President <br />NS:aw <br />enc. <br />& ENGINEERING, INC. <br />58 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.