These suits were found in Summit County
and Federal court. LASER will be searching other courts and areas to achieve
a clearer picture of Moser’s litigation history.
THREE CONSTRUCTION CUSTOMERS OF
MOSER CHARGE THAT MOSER PERFORMED FAULTY AND INCOMPLETE WORK
MOSER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. V WESTRA CONSTRUCTION, INC.
At first blush, this is a case of Moser Construction filing a lien and
then suing a deadbeat customer. Moser sought to collect unpaid debts of
$61,157 from Westra Construction for a 1998 construction project of Outlook
Pointe, an assisted living community center at Ravenna in Portage County,
Ohio.
But here is Westra Construction’s version of events, taken from their
response filed with the courts:
"Westra subcontracted with Moser for the provision of materials and
labor for masonry, foundation and flat concrete work in the construction
of Outlook Pointe. Unfortunately, some of Moser’s work was not
acceptable and Westra back-charged Moser for the cost of repairing or
redoing that work … In addition, Westra disputes some of Moser’s
invoices for extra work and finance charges."
In other words, there are allegations of a hidden story behind Moser’s
lien and court suit – namely that the construction customer found Moser’s
work unsatisfactory and their bills inflated.
This is not the only court suit in which unhappy construction customers
have charged that Moser Construction’s work was unsatisfactory.
R & M ELECTRIC COMPANY ,
INC. V MOSER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC.
According to the lawsuit, R & M Electric (doing business as Summit
Electric) was the successful bidder for the City of Akron’s field lighting
contract for the renovation of the Firestone Stadium in November 1998. R&M
subcontracted the excavation portion of the contract to Moser Construction
for $12,540.
Moser Construction did not start their portion of the work until December
23, 1998, the day before Christmas Eve. Alarmed city officials warned
that they needed several portions of the excavation work completed by
January 14, 1999 or they would hire their own contractor and then
back-charge R & M Electric for those expenses.
According to R&M Electric’s civil court complaint, Moser Construction
failed to complete the conduit excavation and backfilling on time. The city
had to hire another excavation contractor and they billed R&M Electric for
those additional costs of $6,194.
Furthermore, R&M Electric charged that Moser Construction "negligently"
built a concrete pad for the placement of an electrical panel "that was not
level" and "not of workmanlike quality." The City of Akron did not accept
the pad and R&M Electric said they had to correct the pad’s defects and pay
for the improvements out of their own pocket.
Finally, Moser Construction was supposed to auger a series of holes and
set casings and concrete bases for a series of new light poles, but
according to R&M Electric
"[Moser Construction] never returned to the job after it failed to
perform the work ... and therfore breached its contract for failing to
install the new and prefab light pole bases..."
R&M Electric’s complaint also states that Moser Construction breached its
contract by failing to remove the old light pole foundations and by failing
to saw cut and remove old concrete pavement outside the stadium. In sum, R&M
Electric sued Moser Construction for over $41,000 for breach of contract.
Moser Construction admitted they did not complete the work and responded
that the soil they were supposed to excavate was too rocky and that they
also did "extra" work. Moser filed a Claim against Funds against the City of
Akron, seeking compensation of $6,258 for the work they did complete. The
case was ultimately settled and dismissed.
But these are not the only two cases in which construction customers of
Moser have claimed that Moser provided faulty and incomplete work. Below is
yet another recent example, filed in 2000, where the customer charged that
Moser’s products and services were unacceptable.
MOSER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
INC. V W&W DEVELOPMENT, VALLEY HIGH PROPERTY, LTD., SUMMIT COUNTY TREASURER,
PARK VIEW FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, GREIF BROS. CORP.
According to court documents, Valley High Property originally hired Moser
Construction in late 1998 and 1999 to provide goods and services during the
construction of the Flex Office-Warehouse Development in Macedonia, Ohio.
Moser claimed that they provided $18,924 in products and labor to the
project, but were not paid. So Moser Construction filed another damaging
mechanic’s lien against the property and then filed a court suit not only
against Valley High, but against another party, W & W Development.
But W & W Development and Valley High submitted a Statement of Facts and
an Answer that conflicted sharply with Moser Construction’s assertions.
According to their Statement and Answer:
"[Moser Construction], in breach and contravention of this contract
with Valley High, failed to provide the furnished products and services
relative to the project in a timely, acceptable and workman-like manner.
As a result [ of Moser’s breach of contract], Valley High has sustained
damages that are expected to exceed any amount [$18,000] allegedly owed
to [Moser].
The following issues are to be determined at the trial of this
matter: Whether [Moser] breached its agreement with Valley High ...
Whether [Moser] negligently provided and furnished services ... [In
addition], W&W is not a proper party to this action ... W&W is also
expected to file a counterclaim [against Moser] alleging frivolous
conduct and abuse of process claims."
Moser Construction later dismissed W & W from the suit.
