Complaints Against Cives

631 Words2 Pages

The Complaint asserts a cause of action for construction negligence and professional liability against Cives. Further, Lend Lease is asserting a counterclaim against Cives based on a professional liability theory. The claim against Cives is the connection at issue should have been bolted, or that Cives should have more prominently called out the fact the connection was to be field welded in its erection drawings together with indicating temporary support was required. Further, it is alleged schematic on the S-drawings, which MKA prepared, required the connection be bolted. Cives filed a third-party complaint against Midwest for professional liability, contending that Midwest was responsible for determining the means and methods by which it would erect the steel, including how to hold it in place until a given connection is competed. Moreover, if engineering services were needed to determine the means and methods of the erection, it was up to Midwest to secure those services. However, Midwest never requested that Ruby do this type of analysis. Cives has also filed counterclaims for contribution against the design defendants, DZSE, Ruby, and MKA. The parties are completing party and fact depositions. Judge Gomolinski holds …show more content…

(Central time). Further, the matter is set for trial on January 7, 2019. If the case does not settle at the upcoming pretrial conference, there are four Lend Lease witnesses that must be deposed along with wage loss witnesses, family/damage witnesses and several treating physicians. The parties would then progress to expert witnesses. In the event Lend Lease settles the case and Midwest waives its liens, we expect Lend Lease will pursue its contribution claim against Cives. Therefore, we would need to depose Lend Lease’s witnesses and then proceed to expert discovery to prepare for trial starting on January 7,

More about Complaints Against Cives

Open Document