7/14/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ECSI installs. the Electronic Detention and Control System. - The system never operates properly. There are a series of malfunctions after malfunctions. - Schopke takes no action to secure from Dean or Integon payment to the County. - Indian River County sues Schopke. - Schopke vigorously defends the law suit. - Schopke files a motion to dismiss and states as grounds: "The plaintiff has failed to allege that it contracted directly with Norman K. Dean & Associates, Inc., for material modifications to the Detention and Electronic Controls systems subsequent to the Plaintiff's contract with the Defendant, Schopke. The direct contract with Norman K. Dean & Associates, Inc., and the Plaintiff is the contract under with the problems as alleged in the Amended Complaint occurred." - The motion is denied. - Schopke in its Answer to Indian River County's complaint states as follows: "Denied, in that the County in particular has failed to properly notify the contractor of the defect and contracted directly first with the sub -contractor, Norman K. Dean & Associates, Inc., and then with Blevin's Electric, without the consent or permission of the contractor." "The Defendant Schopke would affirmatively assert that the Plaintiff has failed to mitigate its damages by entering into a contract with a new contractor for a contract price that exceeds the initial contract rather than attempting to repair whatever defect existed." 60 M L - Schopke and Hartford are notified of the problems. - Schopke, by its President appears before the Board of County Commissioners on June 13, 1989 to discuss the failure of the Detention Electronics and states "We're looking to Norman K. Dean to, Norman K. Dean's bonding company to foot all costs on this if this doesn't work." At this meeting Mr. Vitunac stated "Mr. Schopke, do you agree to that, if, after three weeks from today the problem is not solved we can be back in the same status we are today; that is, ECSI n Q would be off the job and we would be pursuing our own s z remedies with an independent contractor?" and Mr. Schopke `n replied, "I understand. I have no problems with that. I ¢ think that you're very lenient in allowing us --." } C'6 Q w oAt IN the July 18, 1989 meeting Schopke's president appeared and the matter of the continuing failures was discussed, as well as the hiring of a new contractor to do the work. - Countyhires Blevins to repair pair and replace the Electronic oDetention and Control System. Blevins follows the prepared v specifications and delivers a workable system which the County o ' pays for. > U a - Schopke is subsequently awarded two County construction ad contracts. - Schopke takes no action to secure from Dean or Integon payment to the County. - Indian River County sues Schopke. - Schopke vigorously defends the law suit. - Schopke files a motion to dismiss and states as grounds: "The plaintiff has failed to allege that it contracted directly with Norman K. Dean & Associates, Inc., for material modifications to the Detention and Electronic Controls systems subsequent to the Plaintiff's contract with the Defendant, Schopke. The direct contract with Norman K. Dean & Associates, Inc., and the Plaintiff is the contract under with the problems as alleged in the Amended Complaint occurred." - The motion is denied. - Schopke in its Answer to Indian River County's complaint states as follows: "Denied, in that the County in particular has failed to properly notify the contractor of the defect and contracted directly first with the sub -contractor, Norman K. Dean & Associates, Inc., and then with Blevin's Electric, without the consent or permission of the contractor." "The Defendant Schopke would affirmatively assert that the Plaintiff has failed to mitigate its damages by entering into a contract with a new contractor for a contract price that exceeds the initial contract rather than attempting to repair whatever defect existed." 60 M L