Laserfiche WebLink
OCT 27 IN2 <br />BOOK 87 PaGF 927 <br />INDIAN RIVER COUNTY VS. SCHOPKE CONSTRUCTION <br />County Attorney Charles Vitunac commented from the following <br />memo dated October 21, 1992: <br />TO: Board of County Commissioners �%/� <br />FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorney/ - ( <br />DATE: October 21, 1992 <br />SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY VS. SCHOPKE CONSTRUCTION <br />The subject law suit is to recover damages for money spent by IRC to <br />correct the Detention Electronics System of Phase II of the Jail. The <br />system was originally installed by ECSI a subcontractor of Norman K. <br />Dean, Inc. who was the subcontractor of Schopke. <br />The Court ordered mediation before Judge Daniels (retires). Mediation <br />was held on October 19, 1992 in Orlando. Mediation began at 9:30 a.m. <br />and concluded at 6:00 p.m. The parties present were: <br />Indian River County <br />Schopke Construction Company <br />Hartford Insurance Company <br />W.R. Frizzell (Architects) <br />Norman K. Dean, Inc. <br />ECSI <br />Judge Daniels is a very experienced jurist and mediator. He had an <br />excellent grasp of all the facts and realities of the situation. It was <br />his opinion that the County's case had a "settlement value" of between <br />$150,000 to $200,000. I had independently reached a similar conclusion <br />after living with the suit for a number of months. <br />Judge Daniels worked very hard to try and reach a settlement around <br />the $160,000 level; however, ECSI which is primarily responsible for the <br />faulty installation appears to be a marginal company with little assets <br />and no bond. Norman K. Dean who would be next in line of respons- <br />ibility is in a little better financial shape. The compensation package <br />to Indian River County assembled by Judge Daniels is as follows: <br />Norman K. Dean $90,000 _ <br />W. R. Frizzell 35,000 <br />Schopke Construction 20,000 <br />ECSI 109000 <br />$155,000 <br />Frizzell's contribution is very substantial in view of the fact that they <br />have little, if any, liability. Frizzell's offer is being made in a good <br />faith effort to avoid the time and expense of a law suit ( Dean has made <br />allegations that the specifications provided by Frizzell were faulty. <br />There is no substantial evidence to establish this as a fact) Frizzell <br />makes their offer on the condition that their contribution be paid over a <br />five year period. This, in my view, is reasonable given the fact that <br />there is little, if any, evidence to establish faulty specifications. <br />36 <br />� � r <br />