Developers cause damage to adjacent commercial property during construction of apartments. $25.6M. Alameda County.

Facts and Background

• Facts and Background:

  Plaintiffs owned an autobody repair shop and a commercial property in Oakland. Defendants purchased an adjacent property at 2820 Broadway, demolished the structure and developed 103 luxury apartments.

• Plaintiff's Contentions:

  Plaintiffs contended that defendants trespassed on plaintiffs' property and substantially interfered with plaintiffs' ability to conduct its businesses between 2017 and 2022. That defendants failed to ensure that their construction activities did not harm plaintiffs; that they damaged plaintiffs' foundation and gutter system.

  Specifically, that when defendants demolished the prior structure at 2820 Broadway, they trenched around the side and rear perimeter of plaintiffs' building when building the foundation system for their new building. That vibration from their construction, coupled with the trenching, removed the requisite soil support for plaintiffs' building and caused it to settle, leading to cracking inside and outside of the rear corner walls.

  Further, that defendants trespassed by standing on the roof of plaintiffs' building, walking in the gutters and on the roof, and performing actual construction activities from plaintiffs' roof.  That without permission, they braced against plaintiffs' building to support their exterior walls and refused to stop when told to do so by plaintiff. They also used the airspace immediately above plaintiffs' building for scaffolding and repeatedly used a crane which carried live loads over plaintiff's building during business hours, while the building was occupied with people and customer vehicles.

  That for years, defendants continuously littered on the roof of plaintiffs' building with sawdust and other garbage and debris, and that this caused further damage to the gutter system and contributed to the gutters flooding the inside of the building, causing water damage to the trusses.

  Also, that defendants intentionally disregarded plaintiffs' property rights, and business rights, and did so with malice, oppression, and fraud.

• Defendant's Contentions:

  Defendants contended that they responded promptly to plaintiffs' complaints including taking efforts to prevent workers from walking on the parapet wall of plaintiffs' building; placed plastic wrap around the scaffold to prevent debris from falling on plaintiffs' roof, and cleaned plaintiffs' gutters.

  Additionally, that defendants provided notice prior to crane activities and moved crane activities to the rear of the property.