Consulting, Dispute Resolution, and Expert Testimony Experience
Provided expert witness services including research and expert report to legal counsel representing the developer of a new office building. The case involved a contractor who was performing micro tunneling services for a general contractor during the construction of a new medical office building. The contractor did not properly locate an existing sanitary sewer main and did not properly calculate the amount of concrete they were pumping into the ground. As it turned out, the micro tunneling contractor filled the existing sanitary sewer main with concrete for several hundred feet. This blockage caused the waste to back up into the hospital next door, causing significant damage and service interruption to the hospital. After a thorough review of all the documentation, depositions and other evidence, I provided a 30 page expert report. The case later settled and the client later stated, “Bill, we successfully mediated the case and reached a settlement within the last week. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. I believe it was a big part of getting to settlement.” - A.M.
Was retained to provide expert witness services in a trench collapse case where an employee of the company was tragically killed, resulting in a 7.5 million dollar lawsuit. This was a very intense case with 15 lengthy depositions, shoring testing, hundreds of photos, fire, police and rescue reports, CAL-OSHA investigative reports, citations and 30,000 pages of other documents and evidence. After a thorough review of all the documentation, depositions and other evidence, I provided an initial 60 page expert report and a 25 page supplemental report including testing results graphs and charts, and detailed analysis. The case later settled and the client later stated, “Mr. Gulya, your reports were excellent, they were detailed, accurate and professional. They were instrumental and central in settling this case. Thank you.” - S.J.
Was retained in a case whereby a contractor had installed a new water line in a roadway. At the end of the workday, the road was backfilled and paved. Later that evening a car hit a water valve box that was sticking up out of the roadway where the construction took place, causing extensive damage to the vehicle and injury to the driver. This case was a mystery to me at first. How is it possible a water valve box magically lifted out of the ground? It was further puzzling because the evidence revealed a traffic officer signed off stating the road was safe for traffic to resume over it. Did the officer not see the water valve box sticking up 18 inches to two feet above the road surface? Not likely. After I had performed a careful investigation, it became clear. The evidence supported my conclusion that this roadway serviced a large towing company. My conclusion as stated in my 28 page expert report declared that a tow truck was towing a car where the back end of the car was literally dragging the ground. The rear bumper of the car hooked the water valve box and pulled it up out of the roadway 18 inches to two feet. Shortly thereafter, the car hit the valve box. Mystery solved. The case was later settled out of court. My client called me, “a modern day Sherlock Holmes.” - R.E.
Consulted and provided expert witness testimony in arbitration on approximately $1,000,000.00 back charge case for a contractor, where it was alleged by the general contractor that the contractor did not perform compaction of earth according to his contract. The contractor prevailed in arbitration, was not held responsible for the back charge, and collected in excess of $300,000.00 in additional cost and/or damages from the general contractor.
Consulted on letter of intent for a construction contract value in excess of $2,100,000.00 whereby it was alleged the general contractor terminated the letter of intent and contract for convenience and refused to pay the contractor for work and services already performed. The case involved detailed scheduling, contractor’s estimate, time cards and material cost review. A timeline and detailed report of all equipment, labor, material and miscellaneous cost was developed. The contractor prevailed and was awarded all outlined cost by the court.
Consulted and testified in county court and mediation for a construction contractor who was sued by a retaining wall subcontractor. The subcontractor alleged the contractor should not back charge for delay cost, equipment and labor the contractor supplied to the subcontractor. The contractor’s supporting cost data was evaluated, and both scheduling delays charts and cost support reports were developed. The contractor prevailed on all of the equipment and labor damages and recovered 75% of the delay cost from the subcontractor.
Consulted and testified in open court for a contractor who had filed a lien on a project for nonpayment. The lien was challenged by the defense as being “willfully over exaggerated.” A compilation of the contractor’s accounting, cost, change orders and pending change orders was conducted and a complete analysis provided. The contractor’s legal counsel challenged the defense’s claim. In court the judge determined, based on a preponderance of the evidence provided by both the plaintiff and the defense, that the contractor’s lien value “while not exactly correct was not materially different and therefore was not willfully exaggerated.”
Consulted and testified in Superior Court for a public agency that had brought action against a developer for reimbursement of pumping system cost increases. This required a detailed review of the contractor’s schedule, cost, productivity and manpower. It also required a detailed review of the public agency’s plans, specifications, issued change orders, administrative and engineering cost. The public agency prevailed, and again in Appeals Court, and the decision is published in case law publications.
Consulted with the contractor directly prior to any legal counsel. Contractor
had a substantial delay, winter condition productivity loss and differing site
conditions claim against his customer. The essence of the case involved a delay
caused by a clearing and demo contractor hired directly by the owner. The more
than 3 month delay pushed the contractor into the winter months. The soil became
wet and frozen and thus unsuitable. 45,000 tons of quarry blended imported
material was then required. The GC told the contractor to proceed. The contractor
bought and installed the material at a cost in excess of $720,000.00. The contractor
also trucked / exported the unsuitable earth at a cost of $240,000.00. The
GC then amended its decision to say “proceed and you will be compensated
based on the compensation if any received from the owner.” Needless to
say, the contractor became very concerned. I was then brought in to consult
the contractor. A completed schedule showing the delay and impact, along with
certified weather and temperature charts, was prepared, as well as a detailed
report and accounting of the contractor’s documented cost, and productivity.
Lastly a complete synopsis of the contractor’s entire claim including
CPM schedules, charts, graphs, and written report was provided. As a result
of the contractor’s total preparation the case never went to court and
the contractor was properly compensated.
Consulted with contractor on advice from his counsel. The contractor had a
potential claim against his customer for what the contractor considered additional
work. After reviewing the contractor’s file, I was of the opinion it
was a gray area at best and the contractor’s data could not fully support
his position. I advised the contractor and his attorney it might be more beneficial
and far less costly to try to find some neutral ground. I agreed to prepare
what I believed to be a fair and reasonable settlement. My report included
the reasons for the proposed settlement and why it would benefit the contractor
and be difficult for his customer to reject. The settlement was proposed by
the contractor and finalized by both parties’ legal counsel. In the end
both the contractor and his customer were satisfied with the outcome.
Consulted with legal counsel and provided a 26 page expert witness report. The dispute revolved when a heavy equipment rental company rented equipment to a contractor performing border wall construction. The contractor went out of business and the company was owed a substantial amount of money. The general contract by virtue of their payment and performance bond was then liable for the debt of the contractor. When the rental company asked to be paid, the general contractor alleged the company charged in excess of fair value for the rentals. After extensive research and analysis I was of the opinion the rental company had not over charged, as alleged by the general contractor. The case has yet to be heard or decided by a court of law.
See Attorney References.
