Tyco/Grinnell in Litigation

The FPC has reviewed files on hundreds of Grinnell's court cases and presented summaries of these disputes in past issues. The following pages contain reviews of dozens of additional cases from San Diego, Los Angeles, and Sacramento, California, as well as from Ohio and Michigan. Previous issues have summarized Grinnell's court disputes in Nevada, Oregon, Kentucky, and other urban California Counties.

Rothschild V. Tyco, Others (1999)

All purchasers of piped water in San Diego and other California Counties are suing in this class action complaint. It charges that Grinnell's parent company, Tyco, through its subsidiaries, "...disregarded adherence to multiple standards legal and statutory requirements in order to gain an advantage over competitors and victimize the consuming public including its governmental surrogates through a nefarious scheme to enhance profits and gain revenue through the premature replacement of defective products. ...defendants cheat(ed) on the copper content of the components in order to substitute cheaper materials." According to this suit, the City of Los Angeles, alone, purchased about 300,000 substandard valves! Over two-thirds of the defendants parts failed to conform to contract specifications. The defendants also used 40% more lead than allowed under applicable water standards, creating a prospective public health hazard.
 

Hospice Of Southwestern Michigan V. Grinnell

A fire swept through this hospice, killing Jessie Newsome, Mattie Lake, Luana Teramino, and Richard Smith, and injuring another patient. This complaint charges that: "Grinnell failed to adequately monitor and/or test the smoke detection sprinkler system/fire detection system...whereby the detectors provided no warning to the staff, where an earlier warning would have permitted the staff to perform additional steps necessary in defending the patients against the fire. Grinnell improperly, negligently failed to monitor and/or test the sprinkler system, smoke and alarm system, and detection system within Southfield Rehabilitation Institute...the smoke and fire detectors failed to cause the fire alarm to sound, smoke doors to close, and the sprinkler system to operate. Grinnell failed to have their work inspected and/or tested which would have revealed the defect in the system, which allowed the fire that took the patients lives."
 

Grinnell V. Sandage

This is another case charging Grinnell with selling faulty equipment. Action Fire Systems bought sprinkler parts from a Grinnell subsidiary. But the parts were defective, leaked and caused floods, and tens of thousands of dollars of damages, at several of Action's customers. One of Action's customers, John Goik, was killed in a fire that was caused by malfunctioning fires sprinklers. Grinnell counter-sued, seeking the payment for the defective equipment. Grinnell paid a settlement.
 

Grinnell V. Halvorson-Mclaughlin, Cal-Expo, Aerojet, Others

Grinnell did work on the world-famous Cal-Expo convention grounds. But when a water line was broken, Grinnell sued for the $15,000 it cost for to reconnect the line. Natoma Construction and others filed a cross-complaint and answer against Grinnell, charging instead that Grinnell was negligent, and caused the damages. It stated: "Grinnell was themselves negligent and inattentive in their installation of the underground utilities, without first determining the proper level for such installation, and was negligent and careless. Their inattention proximately caused the damages." Grinnell Fire Protection eventually dismissed charges against two of the defendants.
 

Fire Protection Group V. Grinnell

In 1997, this private civil action against Grinnell for defective pipes charged that Grinnell's pipes: "...were not of merchantable quality...the pipe leaked...the pipe could not pass without objection in (the) trade, were not of fair or average quality...and were not fit for...ordinary use." When Grinnell's customers installed the pipe: "The pipes...developed leaks therefore causing damage to personal property...the defective pipe appeared not to have gone through hydrostatic leakage and assembly test(s)...And could not be used for fire protection systems." In summary, this private party suspected what has now also been charged in the massive class action suits against Grinnell/Tyco-the company has been selling substandard pipe.
 

Buckeye Union Insurance And The Macintosh Company Vs. Grinnell, Gardner Company, Others

Grinnell and the Gardner Company performed renovation work at the Macintosh Company, and because of their negligence, a water pipe ruptured, causing thousands of dollars in damages. Gardner Company's defense included charges that the damages were caused by the acts and omissions of Grinnell.
 

Pacific Ridge V. Grinnell, Others

This condo owners association sued Grinnell and others for over $500,000 because their units were: "not of merchantable quality and are experiencing the following construction failures and deficiencies: drainage systems have failed, causing water to flow into and to damage units...waterproofing systems have failed... heating ventilation, and air conditioning systems are inadequate...electrical and lighting systems are failing... the plumbing systems are failing..."
 

Administrative Action: Grinnell Risking Disbarment In The State Of Washington

In an order dated December 21, 1998, the State of Washington recently affirmed that Grinnell had violated State wage laws. Grinnell failed to comply with the State's Department of Labor and Industries regulations pertaining to wages at a Spokane area construction job at JFK College. The affirmation against Grinnell goes on the State's "strike log" against Grinnell, meaning that if the company has just one more violation of the wage laws, Grinnell will be banned from bidding on public works jobs for one year. Grinnell failed to appeal the ruling, and also owes a $500 fine to the State.
 

Grinnell V. A.O. Reed

Grinnell was a subcontractor to A.O. Reed, hired to install an automatic sprinkler system and related plumbing at the Miramar Naval Air Station near San Diego. This suit charges the water main burst at a point where a Grinnell-installed pipe connected to another pipe. The parking lot was damaged and Grinnell refused to pay for the damage. A.O. Reed deducted the costs from its payment to Grinnell, so Grinnell sued.
 

City Central Of San Francisco Homeowners V. Grinnell, Others

This involved the construction of 49 units of condos at 1110-1160 Eddy Street. The disgruntled tenants sued Grinnell and others, charging defective construction, and alleging $3.5 million in damages. Grinnell became mired in this litigation due to their takeover of a fire protection company called "Stop Fire," who was involved in this project. This case is pending.
 

Gordon V. Grinnell

Gordon's operated Robert Paul Fine Jewelry. In 1996, this shop suffered over $24,000 in damages when a fire sprinkler system next door leaked and flooded the store. His complaint charged that Grinnell negligently and defectively installed and maintained the defective fire protection system.
 

Gonzalez V. Grinnell, Others

In the first half of 1999, Richardo Gonzalez was severely injured when a high pressure fire sprinkler system exploded at the United House of Prayer. This case is currently pending.
 

La Jolla Commercial Associates V. Grinnell, Others

Grinnell and others designed and constructed an overhead fire protection system for an office building. This suit charges, Grinnell acted negligently, and the system failed to meet the building codes.
 

Burgos V. May Department Stores, Grinnell Others

Silvia Burgos was hit on the head by falling ceiling tiles at the May Department Store. Her 1998 suit charges that Grinnell negligently maintained the premises.
 

Grinnell V. Marriot, Others: Grinnell Is Paid $12,000 Over The Original Bid, Sues For Another $121,703

Grinnell was a subcontractor, who installed an automatic sprinkler system at the La Jolla Marriot. Grinnell's contract with the general contractor was for $332,000. Grinnell was paid $344,970, but Grinnell wanted another $121,703. So Grinnell sued Marriot, who was the customer, along with the general contractor.
 

Grinnell V. Equity Expansion, Others: Grinnell Goes 20% Over Bid

Grinnell installed a fire protection system for Equity that was supposed to cost $25,544. But it cost $32,495. When payment was slow, Grinnell liened the property, and sued both Equity and Chicago Title.
 

Grinnell V. Elbert Building: 50% Overrun

Grinnell sued its own customer, but Elbert Building countersued Grinnell in May, 1998, charging that Grinnell ran $13,485 over its bid on a $25,235 job! That's a 50% overrun.
 

Grinnell V. Kajima, Ana Hotels

Grinnell filed a lien against the property of, and sued its own customer, an owner in the lucrative San Francisco Hotel industry, disputing a $38,000 debt. The case went to arbitration. The FPC wonders why a construction company would sue its own customer, and then go to arbitration, rather than trying to work out the problem with an arbitrator at the beginning. The FPC found other court cases by Grinnell against its San Francisco clients, including the Hyatt Hotels, but the FPC was unable to obtain details by press time.
 

Grinnell Supply V. Kaiser Hospital

Grinnell Supply was owed $59,000 when California West Fire Protection went bankrupt, for pipe that Cal West used on a Kaiser Hospital job. Although Grinnell's problem was with Cal West, Grinnell filed a lien against Cal West's customer, Kaiser Hospital.
 

Grinnell Fire Protection V River City Inc., Money Store, Natomas, Southern California Water, Others

Grinnell liened and sued customers and tenants of a shopping center for $36,000 for installation of a fire extinguisher system on a mall at 11363 Folsom, in Rancho Cordova. In their answer, the other parties charged: "Grinnell Fire Protection failed to mitigate their damages...the suit would result in unjust enrichment for Grinnell Fire Protection...the suit is barred by the statute of limitations."
 

Dosdourian V Grinnell

Dosdourian worked for Grinnell for 18 years, but was fired in breach of his employment contract, and did not receive his separation pay.
 

County Of San Diego V . Grinnell, Others

The County had a remodeling job, but Grinnell and others hit the County with stop payment notices that totaled more than what the County owed the general contractor. The County sued Grinnell and others, to sort out who owed what.
 

Bookspan V. Tyco, Others

Henry Bookspan sued Grinnell's parent company, Tyco, and others, for $10 million in this construction defects case.
 

Grinnell V. Peck/Jones Construction, Others

In 1997, Grinnell installed a fire system at 6380 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, as a subcontract to Peck/Jones, but claimed they were still owed $138,678. They sued Peck/Jones, and liened the property of the hapless construction customer.
 

Grinnell V. Starlet International, Others

Grinnell did work for Starlet on Guam, and was owed $36,406. So Grinnell sued.
 

Grinnell V. Corporate Builders

Grinnell did work for Corporate, and was owed $13,379, so Grinnell sued.
 

Grinnell V. Fire Sprinkler Specialties

Grinnell did work for Fire Sprinkler Specialties, and was owed $25,878, so Grinnell sued.
 

Grinnell V. Promotional Marketing

Grinnell did work for promotional marketing and was owed $43,616, so Grinnell sued.