Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03261985 - 1.16 4� OW CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA. COMM, CALIFORNIA BOARD ACTION Claim Against the County, or District ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT March 26, 1985 governed by the Board of Supervisors, ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your Routing Endorsements, and Board ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the Action. All Section references are ) Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV, below), to California Government Codes ) given pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all "Warnings". Claimant: Thomas D. Homan Cau��iy Counsel Attorney: Melvin M. Belli, Sr. FEB 2 7 1985 722 Montgomery- Street Address: San Francisco, CA 94111 CA 94553 Hand-Delivered Martinez, Amount: $10,000,000.00 By delivery to clerk on February 25, 1985 Date Received: February 25, 1985 By mail, postmarked on I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. Dated: February 25, 1985 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By �Ct�c_ Deputy Jolene Edwards II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (Check only one) This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section .910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( ) Other: Dated: By: Deputy County Counsel III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: (1) County Counsel, (2) County Administrator ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER By unanimous vote of Supervisors present (X) This claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated: -o?��, _PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By �b„�„� p,��L� °� , Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. Code Section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6)-months from the date of this notice Was ,personally served or deposited in the mail ,to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. V. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: (1) County Counsel, (2) County Administrator Attached are copies of the above claim. We notified the claimant of the Board's action on this claim by mailing a copy of this document, and a memo thereof has been filed and endorsed on the Board's copy of this Claim in accordance with Section 29703. ( ) A warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to esent a late claim was mailed to claimant. DATED: PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By ,vw, a , Deputy Clerk cc: County Administrator (2) County Counsel (1) CLAIM r. CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY OI' CONTRA COSTA Charter Section 7 . 703 and Government Code Sections 910 - 911 . 2 require that all claims must be presented to the CONTROLLER or to the CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS within one hundred (100) days from the date of accident or incident . CL A I",IANV S NAME: THOMAS D. HOMAN CLAIM7'�NT ' S ADDRESS: 916 Taylor Street , Albany, California 94706 AMOUNT OF CLAIM: Ten million ($10 , 000 , 000. 00) DOLLARS DATE OF INCIDEN ': December 31 , 1.984 . LOCATION OF INCIDENT: 5219 Panama Street, Richmond, California . 110tJ ll_+D IT OCCUR: Neyligcnt failure to provide emergency medical care and treatment to claimant; intentional refusal to provide emergency medical care and treatment to THOMAS D. HOMAN, claimant. DESCRIBE INJURY OR DAMAGE: Claimant , THOMAS D. HOMAN, was refused or did riot receive medical dire or treatment at BROOKSIDE HOSPITAL and MARTINEZ COUNTY HOSPITAL. Its agents and employees negligently , wrongfully, wantonly and intentionally failed to timely treat decedent so that he suffered serious permanent personal injuries , including but not limited to, paralysis of the right side of his body, damage to the central nervous system and other injuries . NAME OF PUBLIC EMPLOi'EES CAUSING INJURY OR DAMAGE: Martinez County Hospital , County of Contra Costa and West Contra Costa County Hospital District, doing business as BROOKSIDE HOSPITAL, its treating physicians, nurses and other medical personnel and employees of said hospitals . ITEMIZATION OF CLAIM: General damages - $5 , 000 , 000 . 00 or according to proof; Punitive damages - $5 , 000 , 000 . 00 Special damages - According to proof . TOTAL: 000 , 000 . 00 and according to proof . MELVIN M. BELLI , SR. SEND NOTICES TO: Attorneys for C LAW OFFICES OF MELVIN M. BELLI , SR. THOMAS D. HOMAN RECEIVED The Belli Building 722 Montgomery Street San Francisco, California 94111 FF9 9s' 1QAIV Telephone: 415-981-1849 ►rm eATc►EM OFRK iCARD t)f SUKIVISORS . Attorneys for Claimant. BY CONT cosTAco . De CLAIM BOARD OF SOPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA CODNTY, CALIFORNIA BOARD ACTION Claim Against the County, or bistrict ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT March 26, 1985 governed by the Board of Supervisors, ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your Routing Endorsements, and Board ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the Action. All Section references are ) Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV, below), to California Government Codes ) given pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all "Warnings". Claimant: Daniel Perez Attorney: Alfred H. Buchta Ccu,�iy Counsel 466 E. 12th street FEB 2 2 1985 Address: Pittsburg, CA 94565 Amount: $25,000.00 By delivery to clerk on hlartinaz, CA 94553 Date Received: February 20, 1985 By mail, postmarked on February 19, 1985 I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. Dated: February 20, 1985 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, ByDeputy *Joene Edwards II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (Check only one) 4) This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This claim FAILS to cemply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). { ) Other: Dated: By: 0Z it Deputy County Counsel III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: (1 ounty Counsel, (2) CoU9y Administrator ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER By unanimous vote of Supervisors present (><Y This claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated -, ,;_ ,S' PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By a , Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. Code Section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6)-months from the date of this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail .to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. V. FROM: Clerk of the Board 70: (1) County Counsel, (2) County Administrator Attached are copies of the above claim. We notified the claimant of the Board's action on this claim by mailing a copy of this document, and a memo thereof has been filed and endorsed on the Board's copy of this Claim in accordance with Section 29703. ( ) A warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to esent a late claim was mailed to claimant. rk. DATED: X7'7_r� PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By d. , Deputy Clerk cc: County Administrator (2) County Counsel (1) CLAIM 1 L 2 FEB 19 To: .?c. : Clerk 3 Sheriff of the County of Contra Costa 651 Pine Street ION 4 Martinez, California 94553 5 /oma 6 CLAIMANT: Daniel Perez I RE LCET"rg� 7 CLAIMANT'S ADDRESS: 25 West 20th St., #4 1��, d `/ j�l� Antioch, CA. 94509 FEBc*)6A985 8BATCMELOR C C A OF S iERV-ORS 9 ADDRESS TO WHICH NOTICES Alfred H. Buchta, Esq. ley ,., ARE TO BE SENT: 468 E. 12th Street 10 Pittsburg, California 94565 11 DATE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF OCCURRENCE: 0 12 On or about November 17, 1984 claimant was in the custody of the Sheriff of Contra ae Cfbsta County at the Martinez County Jail. Claimant is an epileptic and requires medi- 13 cation, Dylatin, several times per day. Notwithstanding claimant's repeated requests, the a deputies on duty failed and refused to allow claimant his medication which was there at 14 the Detention Facility. As a proximate result-of said refusal, claimant lapsed into an y a epileptic seizure which resulted in injury to claimant including a facial laceration. 15 Said injuries required medical treatment and has caused claimant emotional and i; 16 physical pain and suffering. 17 DESCRIPTION OF INJURY OR DAMAGE: 18 Claimant 1pased into an epileptic seizure which resulted in injury to clamant including a 19 facial laceration. 20 21 i 22 23 AMOUNT CLAIMED: 24 Twentg-five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) 25 EMPLOYEE(S) CAUSING DAMAGE: Unknown at this time. 26 DATED: February 19, 1985 27 28 *Attoney . C r Claimant 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL 2 The undersigned, at Pittsburg, California, certifies to be true under penalty of perjury: 3 That she is a citizen of the United States, is employed in Contra Costa County, 4 California, is over the age of 18, and is not a party to the within action or proceeding. t 5 That her business address is 468 East 12th Street, Pittsburg, California, 94565. I 6 That she served a copy of the attached: I 7 TORT CLAIM 8 i 9 by placing said copy scaled in an envelope, addressed as follows: I 10 Clerk Sheriff of the County of Contra Costa 11 651 Pine St. ' 12 Martinez, CA. 94553 a w 13 �S fit s i4 15 16 17 with postage thereon fully prepaid, and thereafter was deposited in the United States j nail at Pittsburg, California. That there is a delivery service by the United States 18 mail at the place so addressed. That the date of deposit in the mail, and the date of execution of this certificate was February 19, 1985 19 20 ! 21tk)q )&AL-7 22 . BE TTIE I 23 24 25 26 27 ! 28 I CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CMT9 COSTA COiJNTY, CALIFORNIA BOARD ACTION Claim Against the County, or District ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT March 26, 1985 governed by the Board of Supervisors, ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your Routing Endorsements, and Board ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the Action. All Section references are ) Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV, below), to California Government Codes ) given pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all "Warnings". Claimant: Richard and Linda Silva Attorney: G. Archer Bakerink Couriity Counsel Belli, Drivon & Bakerink FEB 2 2 1985 Address: 215 N. San Joaquin Street Stockton, CA 95202 Martinet, CA 94553 Amount: $90,000.00 By delivery to clerk on Date Received: February 22, 1985 By mail, postmarked on February 21, 1985 I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. February 22, 1985 `` '' Dated: y PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By .�G�4.fr,�."� Deputy kiene Edwards II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (Check only one) This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( ) Other: Dated: By: Deputy County Counsel III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: (1 ecounty Counsel, (2) County Administrator ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). . IV. BOARD ORDER By unanimous vote of Supervisors present (><I This claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated: ��- (�- R's PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By a , Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. Code Section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6)-months from the date of this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. V. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: (1) County Counsel, (2) County Administrator Attached are copies of the above claim. We notified the claimant of the Boardis action on this claim by mailing a copy of this document, and a memo thereof has been filed and endorsed on the Board's copy of this Claim in accordance with Section 29703. ( ) A warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim was mailed to claimant. DATED: PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By A° , Deputy Clerk cc: County Administrator (2) County Counsel (1) CLAIM a 1 G. ARCHER BAKERINK LAW OFFICES OF BELLI , DRIVON & BAKERINK 2 215 N. San Joaquin Street Stockton, California 95202 3 Telephone: (209) 466-0982 4 Attorneys..for Claimant RECEIVED 5 Fr=4A 19>; PML 2ATCMEI,OA 6 CL:RK BOAROOF SUPERVISORS CCNTRA COSTA CO. lcy-vb. DlpylY 7 8 In the Matter of the Claim of ) CLAIM AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITY 9 RICHARD SILVA and LINDA SILVA ) 10 against the COUNTY OF CONTRA ) COSTA and the CONTRA COSTA ) 11 COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT ) 12 13 TO: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 14 RICHARDS SILVA and LINDA SILVA hereby make claim against 15 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY for the sum of NINETY THOUSAND DOLLARS 16 ($90,000. 00) and make the following statement in support of 17 the claim: 18 1. Claimants' post office address is c/o G. Archer 19 Bakerink, Attorney at Law, Belli, Drivon & Bakerink, 215 North 20 San Joaquin Street, Stockton, California 95202. 21 2. Notices concerning this claim should be sent to 22 G. Archer Bakerink, Law Offices of Belli, Drivon & Bakerink, 23 215 North San Joaquin Street, Stockton, CA 95202 24 3. The date and place of the occurrence giving rise 25 'to this claim is November 29, 1984 at approximately 1:00 a.m. on 26 Marsh Creek Road at approximately five miles west of Deer Valley 27 Road in the County of Contra Costa, State of California. 28 LAW OFFICES OF BELLI,DRIVON&BAKERINK 215 NORTH SAN JOAQUIN-STOCKTON,CALIFORNIA 95202-(209)466-0982 i 1 4. The circumstances giving rise to the claim are as 2 follows : Public employees of the County of Contra Costa 3 negligently and carelessly failed to maintain the subject roadway 4 in such a. manner as to proximately cause the collapse of said 5 roadway. Said public employees further negligently and carelessly 6 failed to warn approaching motorists of the impending danger 7 created by collapse of said roadway. As a proximate result of 8 said failure to maintain said roadway and to warn of the danger 9 created thereby, claimants vehicle fell approximately 35 feet into 10 a hole all to claimants damage as herein alleged. 11 5. Claimants' injuries include, but are not limitied 12 to: 13 RICHARD SILVA--28 stitches in the lip, a broken right 14 front tooth and an injury to his back. 15 LINDA SILVA--17 stitches in the lip, 9 stitches over 16 the left eye, fractured left posterior inferior ribs, fractured 17 spinous processes, and various cuts and bruises. 18 Claimants have been further damaged due to the total 19 loss of their 1,965 Datsun Station Wagon. 20, 6. The names of the public employees causing claimants 21 damages are unknown at this time. 22 7. The claim for damages as of the date of this claim 23 is NINETY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($90 ,000. 00) . 24 8. The basis of computation of the above claim is as 25 follows: 26 Medical Expenses to date unknown. 27 Estimated Future Medical Expenses unknown. 28 Loss of Earnings and Earning Capacity unknown. LAW OFFICES OF BELLI,DRIVON&BAKERINK -2- 215 NORTH SAN JOAQUIN-STOCKTON,CALIFORNIA 95202-(209)466-0982 J 1 Property Damage and loss of use, $2,000. 00. 2 General Damages, pain and suffering as to the balance 3 of this claim. 4 DATED: February �� , 1985 5 6 LAW OFFICES OF BELLI , DRIVON & BAKERINK 7 8 G. ARCHER BAKERI K 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LAW OFFICES OF BELLI,DRIVON&BAKERINK 215 NORTH SAN JOAQUIN-STOCKTON,CALIFORNIA 95202 (209)466-0982 /i0 CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA BOARD ACTION Claim Against the County, or District ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT March 26, 1985 governed by the Board of Supervisors, ) The copy oft s ocument mailed to you is your Routing Endorsements, and Board ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the Action. All Section references are ) Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV, below), to California Government Codes ) given pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all "Warnings". Claimant: Ted Sutton Gour�iy Counsel Attorney: James J. Scherer Bennett, Samualsen, Reynolds & Allard FEB 2 2 1985 Address: 332 19th Street Oakland, CA 94612 Hand-Delivered Martinez, CA 94553 Amount: Unspecified By delivery to clerk on February 20, 1985 Date Received: February 20, 1985 By mail, postmarked on I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. Dated: February 20, 1985 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By b Deputy Jolene Edwards II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (Check only one) Ptr This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimants right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( ) Other: 09 Dated: By: eputy County Counsel ow III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: (1 County Counsel, (2) County Administrator ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER By unanimous vote of Supervisors present (5< This claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated: PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By MLL— L;;2;�j �, , Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. Code Section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6)-months from the date of this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail .to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. V. FROM: Clerk of the Board 70: (1) County Counsel, (2) County Administrator Attached are. copies of the above claim. We notified the claimant of the Board's action on this claim by mailing a copy of this document, and a memo thereof has been filed and endorsed on the Board's copy of this Claim in accordance with Section 29703. ( ) A warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to resent a late claim was mailed to claimant. DATED: �3-�7-FSS PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By ° , Deputy Clerk cc: County Administrator (2) County Counsel (1) CLAIM CLAIM FOR INDEMNITY RECEIVED 1. Claimants: Ted Sutton FEE '-4e 1985 C/O Bennett, Samuelsen, Reynolds & Alla d A Professional Corporation ►M,leaTCWIL t Attorneys at Law CLEUKPOAW?IFIU% %19011 332 19th Street ► _ f • "" Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: X415) 444-7688 2. Residence of Claimant: Ted Sutton, 12 Margaret Lane, Danville, CA 94526 3. Send Notice to: Bennett, Samuelsen, Reynolds & Allard, 332 19th Street, Oakland, CA 94612 4. Circumstances of Claim: During 1979, 1980 and 1981, construction was performed on Crow Canyon Commons , a shopping center , located at Crow Canyon Road, San Ramon, California. Crow Canyon Investment Co. and Crow Canyon Commons Investment Co. filed a complaint for damages in Superior Court, County of Alameda, bearing Action No. 590114-4 , naming as defendants Peter Raldveer and Associates , Inc. , Richard Short, Peter Raldveer , Bogard Construction, Inc. , Rusch Bros. Landscape Construction, MacDonald Construction Co. , Perata, Sylvester & Mutter, Inc. , Albert A. Perata and Ted Sutton as a result of allegedly improper work that they performed on the Crow Canyon Commons Shopping Center . Claimant Ted Sutton was served with this complaint on November 12, 1984. Thereafter , claimant Ted Sutton filed an answer generally denying the allegations of the complaint. If and in the event liability is imposed on claimant Ted Sutton by reason of the complaint referred to above, then claimant Ted Sutton will be entitled to comparative or equitable indemnity, either partial or complete, from Contra Costa County. 5. Amount of Claim: Contingent and undetermined at this time. Plaintiffs claim damages in excess of $1,000,000.00 . 6. Identity of Public Employees: Unknown at this time. DATED: February 20, 985. BENNETT, SAMUELSEN, YNO S & ALLARD By t 11 1 Ja s J Sch rer At orn ys f TED SUTTON a CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA BOARD ACTION Claim Against the County, or District ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT March 26, 1985 governed by the Board of Supervisors, ) The copy oft s document mailed to you is your Routing Endorsements, and Board ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the Action. All Section references are ) Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV, below), to California Government Codes ) given pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all "Warnings". Claimant: Raymond W. Thomas, Jr. County t;OUfiS@I Attorney: Rems,en C. Barnard FEB 2 2 1985 1900 Olympic Blvd. , Suite 104 Address: Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Martinez, CA 94553 Amount: $150,000.00 By delivery to clerk on Date Received: February 20, 1985 By mail, postmarked on February 19, 1985 I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. / Dated: February 20, 1985PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By �4&04� Deputy Jolene Edwards II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (Check only one) X) This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( ) Other: Dated: By: Deputy County Counsel III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: (1) County Counsel, (2) County Administrator ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER By unanimous vote of Supervisors present ( ) This claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated: PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By ° , Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. Code .Section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6)-months from the date of this notice Was personally served or deposited in the mail ,to file a count action on this claim. See Governnent Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. V. FROM: Clerk of the Board 70: (1) County Counsel, (2) County Administrator Attached are copies of the above claim. We notified the claimant of the Board's action on this claim by mailing a copy of this document, and a memo thereof has been filed and endorsed on the Board's copy of this Claim in accordance with Section 29703. ( ) A warning of claimant's right to apply for leaveto went a late claim was mailed to claimant. - ol 97 DATED:- PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By . ° , Deputy Clerk cc: County Administrator (2) County Counsel (1) CLAIM y RECEIVED _ t FEB ao INS CLAIM AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITYrfq TOR tcoN RAYMOND W. THOMAS, JR. hereby makes a claim against the County of Contra Costa- for the sum of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000) and makes the following statements in support of the claim• 1. Claimant's Post Office Box is 166 Leonard Drive, Concord, CA 94518. 2. Notices concerning the claim should be sent to Remsen C. Barnard, Esq., Law Offices of Malcolm A. King, 1900 Olympic Blvd., Suite 104, Walnut Creek, CA 94596. 3. The date and place of the occurrence giving rise to this claim are November 14, 1984 at approximately 12:30 a.m. and thereafter at claimant's residence and at the City of Concord Police Department and at the County Jail in Martinez. 4. The circumstances giving rise to this claim are as follows: At the time and place noted above, claimant was rousted from his bed by uniformed officers of the Concord Police Department on a warrant for an escape from the Clayton Rehabilitation facility on December 12, 1983. The warrant had been issued for Raymond Wesley Thomas, Jr., who is claimant's half brother. Claimant's half brother has a description which somewhat resembles the description of claimant except that claimant does not wear glasses whereas his half brother does and whereas the claimant's brother has tattoos on his upper extremities whereas claimant has no tattoos. Claimant's fingerprints are different from those of his half brother. The Concord Police Department was informed at approximately 4:30 a.m. on November 14, 1984 that claimant has a half brother with the same name. Thereafter officers of the Concord Police Department transported claimant to the County Jail in Martinez at approximately 5:30 a.m. where he was placed in custody until his arraignment at 2:30 p.m. on November 14, 1984. The officers of the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department were negligent in that they failed and refused to timely act on the information given them by claimant and } claimant ' s family to show that they had unnecessarily and unreasonably detained claimant following his arrest and booking. 5. As a result of the conduct of the Sheriff's Department of Contra Costa County, plaintiff suffered chagrin, embarrassment, anxiety, worry, mental and emotional distress and loss of reputation. 6. The names of the public employees causing the claimant's damage are presently unknown to claimant but are the booking and investigating officers of the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department and others yet unknown. 7. The claim as of this date is One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000) . The basis of the computation of the above amount is as follows: legal fees incurred in defending the criminal allegations $307.00; loss of work $560.00; general damages $149,133 for a total of $150,000. Dated: February 19, 1985 J -t RAYMOND W. THOMAS, JR., CLAIMANT 0 AMENDED CLAIM CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA OO[Wffg CALIFORNIA BOARD ACTION Claim Against the County, or District ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT March 26, 1985 governed by the Board of Supervisors, ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your Routing Endorsements, and Board ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the Action. All Section references are ) Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV, below), to California Government Codes ) given pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all "Warnings". Claimant: Calif. State Automobile Assn Inter-Ins. Bureau Cc1U�sjy Counsel P.O. Box 2489 Attorney: Dublin, CA 94568 FEB 2 7 1985 Address: via C/A (1rs(YincZ, CA 9553 Amount: $2,022.13 By delivery to clerk on February 26, 1985 Date Received: February 26, 1985 By mail, postmarked on I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. �Q Dated: February 26, 1985 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Deputy Jolene Edwards II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (Check only one) (� ) This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( ) Other: Dated: 1Z 7- By: L Deputy County Counsel III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: (1) County Counsel, (2) County Administrator ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER By unanimous vote of Supervisors present �) This Blain _s rejected in full. ( , ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated: - PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By a , Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. Code Section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6)-months from the date of this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. V. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: (1) County Counsel, (2) County Administrator Attached are copies of the above claim. We notified the claimant of the Board's action on this claim by mailing a copy of this document, and a memo thereof has been filed and endorsed on the Board's copy of this Claim in accordance with Section 29703• ( ) A warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim was mailed to claimant. DATID: -� PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, Bynwy, 01-1-A J a°, , Deputy Clerk cc: County Administrator (2) County Counsel (1) CLAIM f�Claim For Damages In accordance with Section 910 t Ca�C:j'f_ornia Government Code, this is to formally place you on notice of our subrogated claim fo t� 1 Q1E61tiillbE0*PlgwVED . FEB 19 1985 Date: February 14, 19 85 Office of • COunt;" Administrator Dublin County of Contra Coata , California 651 Pine St. Martinez, CA 94553 Claim is hereby made and filed against the County of Contra Costa as follows: Nameof Claimant: California State Automobile Association Inter-Insurance Bureau Address of Claimant: (send notices to this address) P.O. BOX 2489 Date of Occurrence: ?CB - 1965 12-10-84 FEB C D e J .7 Place of Occurrence: PHIL BATCHELOR Danville Blvd. , Alamo, CA 94568 LERK BOARUF SUPERVIS014 8 R STI u Nature and Amount of Damages 52,022.13 Items Making up said Amount: 1972 Challenger (dodge) Name of Public Employee(s) causing said Damage(if known): Facts & Details: Insured was northbound on Danville Blvd. A 1971 Volkswagen was southbound on Danville --malLle Blvd. , and preparing to turn left on to Deodor Lane when strl3c�E—Free behiREly a Pa%VQ1 nar 41Vi Vez by `IChaPl 50'f-h- On impact, the volkswagen was forced into our insured's path. The left front of our insured's Smith. original claim filed 1/29/85. California State Automobile Association Inter-insurance Bureau F1668(REV.5-7e} assi nment of claim and subrogation agreement In consideration of the payment to the undersigned of Rk the sum of $2,022.13 ❑ a sum estimated to be TWO THOUSAND TWENTY TWO and 13/100 Dollars, being the full amount of loss and damage insured against under an automobile insurance policy, number T36676-0 _ issued to the undersigned by the CALIFORNIA STATE AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION INTER-INSURANCE BUREAU, said loss and damage having occurred on or about the loth day of December 1984 the said undersigned hereby assigns and transfers to said Bureau my said claim in the above amount plus 0 additional claim for damage resulting from said accident, not covered under said policy of insurance, in the amount of$ 0 constituting ' a total claim ❑ a total estimated in the amount of $ 2,022_13 Said Bureau is hereby subrogated in my place and stead to the extent of the above amount of the said total claim and is hereby authorized and empowered to sue, compromise or settle in my name or other- wise to the extent of said total claim for loss and damage, and to endorse in my name any check made payable to me therefor, and collect and receive any money payable thereby. The undersigned covenants that r ha vP not released or discharged any such claim or demand against such party or parties and that I will furnish to said Bureau any and all papers and information inny possession, necessary for the proper prosecution of such claim. Dated at 1 �w' l/y 1 this �� ' day of WITNESS F1433 (REV.7-77( : = . California State Automobile Association inter-Insurance Bureau 855724 DATE O► LOSS CLAIM - INSUII CC'! NAM[ DATE POLICY N84 D Or LDSg01—T36676-0 OLIVEkSurVIX L AUITREY LC IPAY + 00 AUTO COL 01F DLIVEk AUr EY C $1, 937. 13 N$ D.O. ADJUSTER NO. IN PAYMENT OF: Tt+rOuyh m c CA �p�oW�Serve ill --8 0 1 IiUR 14467/14051 COLLISION REPAIRS P.o 80.J8WI 1210 :x San FrantUI00.CA 96170 ,1 C PAY *ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED THIRTY—SEVEN 13/100* Dm In^+ cD MM M0 SHAMROCK FORD , MM TO AND AUDREY C OLIVER AUT NO It I: 0 SI. ATUFL 0LA r ORDER 7499 DUBLIN BLVD DUBLIN CA 94566 "81355724,16 l: L 2 L0000861: 060702 & 361,03333 I _ . A - . � California State Automobile Association Inter-Insurance Bureau 8 5 6 2 5 5 _85625 -9—R C<..r C� LCIS C•. ,.... :•.` 4-: ` ♦•NE t'02-01-85 TE 12-10-84 01—T36676-0 IOLIVER.AAUIREY, C Z. I � v AUTO COL i 018 OLIVER, AUDREY, C $85. 00 Crocker NationN Bank ^8 ? DUB 14467 ( TEAR DOWN REPAIRS I 0 So.3E.-Y o _ iao So.3E Sar Fwc,sco.CA 94138 r C PAY *EIGHTY FIVE 00/100* T m. • < 9 m a. X 0 SHAMROCK FORD mm TO 7499 DUBLIN BLVD AL: 0C91ZE- `:G`J9E Or. 1FEE�. DUBLIN CA 94566. or 11'856255118 §: & 2100001361: 06070213603333 -4c) `=�+rc`i it �.C1 C l��1r1 C��' c C1 ).d ►' {ter 4r �C -jo rE— r F-r c Y _ r`rr +0 pCj � i ESTIMATE OF REPAIRS - - Estimate Good for 80 Days CHRYSLER — PLYMOUTH " ,n PHONE 829-5211 —CA.REG-NO.41743 7499 DUBLIN BLVD. — DUBLIN,CALIFORNIA 94568 NAMES AODR S, DATE i� MAKE OF YEAR TYPE LICENjDEH01 / Q MILEAGE MOTOR NO.AND/OR SERIAL ' -ZZ d dr 16 A.i.. L0 / RED 6V ADJUSTER INSECTOR P �eC INSUPHONE7 [ V /JJJ HOME I , aYMaOI LABOR NRS. PARTa ` ' _ is . 1. 57 - i 71, _ � . V : i° V '/J r IV Yy t OF t; tow .r JF »s f = 3. s n ° � rr ./.C'f'^ /�T.Yfr '"'' P�if' C:. �r M asft� f. .S ` 1p JA AR LabOT �( - E/(w 9~and Nrt subl.e ane nat J , : s salsa Ta: s .- - f4 TR Qs� X ITEMS MISSED ON GARAGE E8T prWW Y6ar: !Mirtfi4 liibs�+ fAs TE OLLD+mil UNRELATED DAMAGE. t "° - •_. ,,,, sa. ";�.� � ;� Y,: ;iii _ .Yrta _ ._�� .,.`� > i•�.a�' s'>�,g' '� y�,� "r,F. 4?_2 sr��N y�-` � ;ar��r7tf��. �r�� �,�'�:X� ' IrWE dx!` ,alit,. �� � !: � i •-� _ s, _ � u—��./w�7I�/� - � �', MJE S�'_R�' -3✓�l'Y � *b.. JIM1e �iT-.>>-.9'.p: _.X•.Y " 1 41 <4 _ r: 2a S�CD4�'"•_2'.� � ..� - .' •. -� `$fift -_ _ '0l.. _ - -,� •2^ .{ �,�y^.GF`•fr= g. , g I �� ryr 4 _ ./f1 f �; is y y�", '.-JC�':amC' "f'R CL"� i1E.iS°.BIISQ'a '��.i�.3� x� ��'3�-s s.•' w�.R J ; �f .s -aLn. ��.-- _�. ta$ A. :. ' may, 5�...• �A�' '4 .Al C'M�� �,..r.��'C�d1Gyy±. � .c,•vr, 1yr ' �� .e33 ut�lO.IIz76Slss �a.A .7.s1�'�i� "Lr�?Y .'yt.�-•'d _ _ 'tom n 4- ,� i _ x 2. - 7•}. x-l.!y"` .-'$' a"�` -x _ '` L/•G APPLICATION TO FILE LATE CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA BOARD ACTION Application to File Late Claim ) NOTICE TO APPLICANT March 26, 1985 Against the County, Routing ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your Endorsements, and Board Action.) notice of the action taken on your' applieation by (All Section References are to ) the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph III, below), California Government Code.) ) given pursuant to Government Code Sections 911.8 and 915.4. Please note the "WARNING" below. Claimant: Cal-Farm Insurance Compnay CGi1ily Counsel Attorney: Laszlo Komjathy, Jr. , Esq. Adams & Philipps FEB 2 7 1985 Address: 545 Sansome Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Martinez, CA 94553 Amount: $30,750.00 By delivery to Clerk on Date Received: February 26, 1985 By mail, postmarked on February 22, 1985 I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors T0: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above noted Application to File Late Claim. DATED: February 26, 1985 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By a9Deputy Jo ene Edwards II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ( ) The Board should grant this Application to File Late Claim (Section 911.6). The Board should deny this Application to File Late Claim (Section 911.6). DATED: ICTOR WESTMAN, County Counsel, By Deputy 16 III. BOARD ORDER By unanimous vote of Supervisors present (Check one only) ( ) This Application is granted (Section 911.6). (>d This Application to File Late Claim is denied (Section 911.6). I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. DATES - -�!�� PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, ByO ° Deputy WARNING (Gov. Code §911.8) If you Wish to file a court action on this matter, you must first petition the appropriate court for an order relieving you from the provisions of Government Code Section 945.4 (claims presentation requirement). See Government Code Section 946.6. Such petition must be filed With the court within six (6) months Pram the date your application for leave to present a late claim was denied. You may seek the advise of any attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, u should do so immediately. IV. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: 1 County Counsel 2 County Administrator Attached are copies of the above Application. We notifed the applicant of the Board's action on this Application by mailing a copy of this document, and a memo thereof has ben filed and endorsed on the Board's copy of this Claim in accordance with Section 29703 L� O DATED: -o? - PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, Ey J Deputy V. FROM: 1 County Counsel 2 County Administrator TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Received copies of this Application and Board Order. DATED: County Counsel, By County Administrator, By APPLICATION TO FILE LATE CLAIM ADAMS & PHILIPPS ' A Profes•sionai Corporation LASZLO KOMJATHY, JR. , ESQ. 545 Sansome Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 781-5842 RECEIVED Attorneys for Claimant FC C*,at "- CAL-FARM INSURANCE COMPANY ONIL BATCMFLOR Esau BOARD OF SUPERWSORS TRA COSTA CO. B A.Antl)- WOufY In the Matter of the Claim of APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO CAL-FARM INSURANCE COMPANY, PRESENT CLAIM. against CONTRA COSTA FLOOD . CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT through the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, California. TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA: CAL-FARM INSURANCE COMPANY HEREBY APPLIES TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS for leave to present a claim against said public entity pursuant to Section 911.4 of the California Government Code. The cause of action of CAL-FARM INSURANCE COMPANY as set forth in the proposed claim attached hereto, accrued on October 5, 1984, a period within one year from the filing of this application. CAL-FARM INSURANCE COMPANY'S reason for delay in presenting its claim against the Board of Supervisors is as follows: a. On August 3, 1984 a formal request for an ex- tension of time and/or waiver of liquidation of damages was presented to Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District; b. On October 5, 1984, notice was given by the Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District that the request for an extension of time and/or waiver of liquidated damages was denied. C. Within 100 days of the notice of denial, CAL- FARM INSURANCE COMPANY submitted its claim to the Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District which acknowledged receipt thereof on December 21, 1984; the claim was subsequently forwarded to the Board of Supervisors on January 2, 1985; d. CAL-FARM INSURANCE COMPANY submitted its claim in good faith within 100 days of being notified that its request for an extension of time and/or waiver of liquidation of damages was denied. WHEREFORE, it is respectively requested that the application be granted and that the attached claim be received and acted upon in accordance with Sections 912. 4 - 912. 8 of the Government Code. DATED: rd_ aa7 Z 21 l ADAMS & PHILIPPS 23 B LA KOMJY, Atto eys for C1ATHant CAL-FARM INSURANCE COMPANY -2- CLAIM This claim is submitted on behalf of CAL-FARM INSURANCE COMPANY against the CONTRA COSTA FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, a political subdivision of the State of California. The address of the claimant is as follows: CAL-FARM INSURANCE COMPANY c/o Adams & Philipps A Professional Corporation 545 Sansome Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Claimant desires all notices with respect to this claim to be sent to it at the above address. This claim is for recovery of the liquidated damages assessed by the CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT in derogation of the CAL- FARM INSURANCE COMPANY' S rights derived from completing Contract No. 7505-6F7750-83 commonly known as ALHAMBRA CREEK BANK REPAIR AT SONORA COURT pursuant to the terms of the performance bond issued in conjunction with said contract. The liquidated damage assessment in the amount of $30, 750. 00 unlawfully and improperly depleted the remaining contract funds available to CAL-FARM INSURANCE COMPANY for completion of the project. On August 22, 1983, CONTRA COSTA FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (hereinafter "DISTRICT") through the Board of Supervisors for the County of Contra Costa awarded contract no. 7505-6F7750-83 to Precision Seeding. The special provisions for the contract awarded on August 22 , 1983 provides that the "starting date for the notice to proceed shall be no later than the third Monday after the date the contract was awarded by the Board of Supervisors" ; namely, September 12, 1983. Contrary to the express provisions , the notice to proceed was not issued by the DISTRICT until September 26, 1983, two weeks later than mandated by the special provisions for the contract. On or about September 9, 1984 , PRECISION SEEDING as principal, and CAL-FARK INSURANCE COMPANY as surety, executed and delivered to the CONTRA COSTA FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT as obligee, CAL-FARM INSURANCE COMPANY' S public works performance and payment bond no. 05124 in the respective penal sums of $145, 000. 00 and $77, 500. 00. On or about February 2 , 1984 PRECISION SEEDING stopped work on the project and was subsequently defaulted by CONTRA COSTA FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT. Demand was made on CAL-FAI;CNI INSURANCE COMPANY to arrange for completion of the project on March 1, 1984 pursuant to its public works performance bond. The surety arranged for the satisfactory completion of the project in a timely manner for the price of $77 , 832 . 00 . On August 3, 1984 , CAL-F'ARNI INSURANCE COMPANY submitted to Mr. Maurice E. Mitchell , Flood Control Design and Construction Engineer, a formal request for an extension of time for completion and/or waiver of liquidated damages. Attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit "A" is the correspondence of August 3, 1984 . On October 5, 1984 , notice was given that the request for an extension of time and/or waiver of liquidated damages is denied. Liquidated damages were assessed by the DISTRICT in the amount of $30, 750. 00. Said assessment reduced the contract funds available to the surety for completion from $48, 255. 00 to $10, 505. 00. The liquidated damages assessed were the responsibility of the DISTRICT on the c3rounds that the DISTRICT failed to issue the notice to proceed in a timely manner thereby jeopardizing the completion of the project in a timely manner due to adverse weather which in- creased the actual time for completion and increased the cost of completion because of excessive water flow; that the DISTRICT initially assessed liquidated damages from December 3, 1983 but failed to deduct the damages assessed from the pay estimate of January 15, 1984 for which the DISTRICT issued its warrant in the amount of $37 , 296 . 00 on January 27, 1984; and that the DISTRICT failed to. demand completion by the surety on a timely basis . As a direct consequence of the DISTRICT' S failure to deduct liquidated damages assessed as of December 3 , 1983 from the pay estimate of January 15, 1984, CAL-FARM INSURANCE COMPANY was damaged to the extent that the 45 days of liquidated damages assessed at the rate $250. 00 per day for a total of $11, 250. 00 were not deducted from said pay estimate. CAL-FARM INSURANCE COMPANY was further damaged by the obligee' s failure to notify the surety to perform until March 1,_ 1984 although the original contractor had ceased to perform as of February 2, 1984. The damage sustained by surety was the 28 days of liquidated damage assessed at the rate of $250. 00 per day or a total of $7 , 000 . 00. All of the liquidated damages assessed by the DISTRICT were assessed to the detriment of the surety, CAL- ' FARM INSURANCE COMPANY, because the DISTRICT did not default PRECISION SEEDING in a timely manner nor demand performance from the surety under its public works performance bond until March 1, 1984 . As a direct consequence of the assessment of the liquidated damages in the amount of $30, 750. 00, CAL- FARM INSURANCE COMPANY was denied the right to utilize said monies for completing the project according to the terms of its public works performance bond and to pay Stop Notice claims made in connection with said project and according to -3- the terms and conditions of the public works payment bond. CAL-FAR.M INSURANCE COMPANY was, therefore, damaged in the amount of $30, 750. 00. CAL-FARM INSURANCE COMPANY has completed the project according to the terms and conditions of its performance bond for the amount of $77, 832. 00 and has paid labor and materialmen pursuant to its payment bond in the sum of $48, 960. 68. CAL-FARM INSURANCE COMPANY, therefore, respect- fully submits this claim to the CONTRA COSTA FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT for the amount of $30 , 750 . 00 plus interest thereon from and after May 15, 1984 , the date that the project was accepted as complete by the CONTRA COSTA FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT. DATED: ADAMS & PHILIPPS Y LASZLO KOMJATHY, JR. --! Attorneys for CAL-FARM INSURANCE COMPANY Luv OFF'Fc:E5 OF ADAMS 8C h11I1.111PS ♦F>•O11ESO w.t CGA.Oq.TION 545 SANSOME STREET WALLACE 8. ADAMS SIXTH FLOOR CHARLES J. PHILIPPS SAN i R.ANCISCOI CALII ORNIA 94111 RAYMOND M. ALEXANDER. JR. 415—JHI-5G42 GEOFFREY F. GAIDOS PAUL K. KNIGHT OVA FILE NO. LASZLO KOMJATHY, JR. IRA H. ZELNIGHER 38-1 August 3, 1984 Mr. Maurice E . Mitchell Flood Control Design & Construction Engineer Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, California 94553 Re: Principal : Precision Seeding Bond No. 05124 Obligee Contra Costa Flood Control Alhambra Creek Bank Repair at Sonora Court #75056775083 Dear Mr. Mitchell : On March 1, 1984, demand was made by the Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District that Cal- Farm Insurance Company, under the terms of its performance bond, take immediate provisions to complete the project. Demand was made by certified mail and received by Cal-Farm Insurance Company on Mlarch 5, 1984 . Thereafter, and in a ' timely manner, Cal-Farm Insurance Company arranged for the project' s successful completion by Watkin and Bortolussi, Inc. In your correspondence of May 29, 1984 , you notified us that as of May 15, 1984, there was a 152 calendar day overrun of the confract for a liquidated damage claim of $38, 000 . 00, not including any considerations for extension of time. This is a formal request for an extension of time and/or waiver of liquidated damages. 1. Cal-Farm Insurance Company requests an extension of time in the amount of 152 calendar days. The extension is requested on the following grounds: a) Cal-Farm Insurance Company issued its public works performance bond as of September 6, 1984 , pursuant to the terms of the contract awarded by the - - Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District to Precision Seeding; and MX. !•;aurice E. !•Si .hell Re: Precision Sec. rig August 3, 1984 Page Two 38-1 b) The District failed to adher to the contract terms which are incorporated into the public works performance bond and embodied in the special provision for construction repairs at Sonora Court, dated July 26, 1983, which by reference incorporates the Standard Specifica- tions of Contra Costa County for public works construction 1981 Edition, hereinafter referred to as C.S. , and the Standard Specifi- cations of the State of California, in Business and Transportation Agency, Department of Transportation, dated January, 1981, hereinafter . referred to as S.S. According to the Special Provisions for the contract, as promulgated by the District, the "starting date in the Notice to Proceed shall be no later than the third Monday after the date the contract is awarded by the Board of Supervisors. " The contract was awarded by the Board of Supervisors on August 22, 1983 and the special provisions mandated the project' s commencement no later than the third !•fonday proceeding August 22, 1983 or September 12, 1983. However, the Notice to Proceed, was not issued by the District until September 26, 1983 . The Notice to Proceed was issued two weeks later than mandated by the special provisions. The remedy available to the Flood Control District at the time the contract was to be executed was not the waiver of the provisions but to pursue its remedies under S.S. 931. 03 "Execution of Contract" and S . S . §31. 04 "Failure Execute Contract". The remedy available to the Flood Control District was the forfeiture of the proposal guarantee or bid bond. If the Flood Control District would have adhered to its own - unambiguous provisions of the contract, Cal-Farm Insurance Company would have never been required to perform under the terns of the performance bond and would not have been exposed or damaged to the extent that the obligee claims liquidated damage. The timely completion of the project was essential . The District' s failure to enforce the contract terms exposed the project site to a much greater risk of inundation by water " for an extensive period of time. The importance of a dry channel is evidenced by Mr. Randolph W. Leptien 's correspondence of September 29, 1983 addressed to Mr. Scott, wherein he states that: "In conformance with the requirements of §12, 'Removal of Water' is considered essential to the timely-and satisfactory completion of the remaining items of work. " txHoff. A 4 i•Sr. ::�:u1.iCt2 1,:. :•;; ?,cll Re: Precision Ser ' ing August 3, 1984 Page Three 38-1 (Enphasis added. ) The very contingency which all parties to the contract were concerned with, i.e. , excessive rain fall , occurred between September 29 and September 30, 1983. Dduring a 48 hour period, over one inch of precipitation fell causing the principal ' s earthen dam to collapse which significantly affected the ability of the contractor to work on the project at that time and thereafter. The inherent dangers of permitting the commencement of the project at such a late date are reaffirmed by your correspon- dence of October 18, 1983 addressed to Mr. Scott wherein You state: "It appears that the delay in the contract is due to your water removal operation. We are encouraging you to use .. another acceptable manner of dewatering in an effort to speedup the removal of the water. " On November 15, 1983, Mr. Scott addressed this specific problem wherein he requested a 16 day extension when he states that: "Delay caused by the extreme problem encountered in dewatering the portion of the work on the project and problems of obtaining a pump large enough to handle the waterflow. " (Emphasis added) The problems arising in Precision Seeding 's ability to complete the project directly relates to Precision Seeding 's estimated waterflow at the jobsite. If the obligee had adhered to the teras of its contract, demanded the execution of the contract within the required time and issued the notice to proceed as of September 12, 1983, two weeks of construction time would have been available to the contractor prior to the first rainfall at the jobsite. This would have permitted a significant amount of preparatory work, and the placement of the concrete slab and weirs before the removal of water -became a significant problem. The Contra Costa County Flood Control & Eater Conservation District' s unilateral disregard of the terms of the contract bonded by Cal-Farm Insurance Company prejudiced the surety's interests to such an extent that when demand was made for performance, Cal-Farm Insurance Company had the legal right to claim exoneration. However, it chose not to do so, instead it proceeded with the timely completion of the project.: But for �the County's failure to adhere to the contract provisions which it promulgated, Cal-Farm Insurance Company would have never been called upon to perform. EXHIBIT A :Sr. Maurice F. 14 :hell Re: Precision See ' ng August 3, 1984 Page Four 38-1 The ramifications of the obligee' s unilateral disregard of the contract terms are evident by Mr. Scott' s correspondence of December 1, 1983 addressed to Randolph Leptien wherein he advised Mr. Leptien that the velocity test of November 29, 1983 showed that the creek was flowing at a rate of 2, 700 gallons per minute and that the last rains had overtopped their dare and had gone beyond the capacity of the pump which was 1, 300 gallons per minute. The significance of- the statement is that the proposal submitted by William Scott was based upon an anticipated waterflow of no more than 1, 300 gallons per minute which would have been the case, but for the County 's failure to enforce the very terms of the contract which was prepared by the Flood Control District. On November 15, 1983, Mr. Scott requested a 16 day extension of time, and on December 1, 1983 an additional 15 day extension was requested to permit a decrease in the water velocity. We are at loss as to why it took until January 18, 1984 to deny this extension of time when, as early as November 22, 1983, a decision was made to deny all extensions of time requested due to excessive waterflow. Consequently, Cal-Farm Insurance Company requests that the Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District waive the provision for liquidated damages as to the surety or, alternatively, grant a 152 day extension for completion of the project. Once again we wish to reiterate that if the Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conser- vation District would have adhered to the special provisions of the contract, Cal-Farm would never have been required to perform and the District would have been made whole by the bid bond or proposal guarantee. Instead, it chose to permit a significant delay of the execution of the contract, and without -the surety's consent, waive the time requirements for commencement of the contract, thereby placing the project site in immediate jeopardy of inundation all to the surety' s prejudice. As outlined in the above, Cal-Farm Insurance Company has been clearly prejudiced to the extent that the District assesses liquidated damages. 2. Alternatively, Cal-Farm Insurance Company requests an extension of time to complete the project up to and including April 20, 1984 . The basis for the requested extension of time is for the reasons provided in Part 1 request for extension of time, and, additionally, -no t3 it A r 4HIRIT. A 1 U Mr. Maurice E. MiL ell Re: Precision Seeoing August 3, 1984 Page Five 38-1 demand was made by the obligee for Cal-Farm Insurance Company to arrange for completion of the project until March 1 , 1984 . Once Cal-Farm Insurance Company was notified of the obligee 's default, it arranged for the project' s timely completion . It is apparent from the daily work reports that Precision Seeding was on and off the jobsite through the middle of January when it was officially notified that its extension of time requests of November 22, and December 1, 1983 were denied. Until that. time, Precision Seeding proceeded in good faith to complete the project regardless of the various obstacles confronting it. After Precision Seeding was notified of your denial of their request for an extension of time, no further work was done. It took an additional two to three weeks for the obligee to even demand that the principal return to the jobsite or be defaulted. At that time it was given five (5 ) days to return. An additional two weeks expired before the obligee proceeded to demand performance from the surety. The above period of time would have been available for j completion by the surety, but for the obligee's failure to f notify Precision Seeding that as of November 22, 1983, a decision had been made to deny an extension of time. Your failure to advise Precision Seeding of your decision until January 18, 1984 was prejudicial to the surety as evidenced by the fact that when notified, Precision Seeding shortly thereafter ceased to perform. Additionally, Precision Seeding was led to believe, to the detriment of the surety, that the District was seriously considering an extension of time when it issued its warrant on January 27, 1984 in the amount of $37, 296 . 00. Said warrant was issued without any deductions for liquidated damages which had already been assessed as of December 2, 1983. If the appropriate deduction for liquidated damages would have been made, Cal-Farm Insurance Company would never have been prejudiced by the release of the contract funds.-- If the obligee would . have give timely notice of their decision to deny Precision Seeding 's request for an extension of time and deducted from the progress payment the liquidated damages, the surety would not have been prejudiced by the assessment of liquidated damages. FXHIRIT A Ai Mourice T. J% liell Re: Precision Sec '4,ng August 3, 1984 Page Six 38_1 The request for the extension of time up to and including April 20, 1984 encompasses the time which it took the obligee to default the principal, demand performance, and permit Cal-Farm Insurance Company to arrange for completion of the project, plus an additional 10 calendar days representing the weekends during which the completing contractor did not work. 3. Finally, Cal-Farm Insurance Company reasserts Precision Seeding ' s request for an extension of time due to the unavailability of required materials during the months of October and November; excessive surface water caused by rain which would never have been a problem but for the obligee ' s failure to require the commencement of the project on September 12, 1983; and the illness of the principal . Very truly yours, ADAMS & PHILIPPS Laszlo Komjathy, Jr. LK/eyr bccz Mr. Harold Stern, Cal-Farm Insurance Company (2) Eagle Bonds & Insurance Brokers, Inc.