Complaint Sample

COMPLAINT

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COUNTY,

FOR THE DISTRICT OF

)

)

V.

NO.

)

)

)

)

Plaintiffs, and , corporations with their principal places of business in , County, , file this their suit against Defendants, and .

Parties and Venue

1. Plaintiffs are corporations with their principal offices in , County, .

2. is a corporation having its principal place of business in , and may be served with process by serving its agent for process, , , . are adult resident citizens of , , who may be served with process at .

3. This cause of action arises out of a contract to be performed in , , and a tort which occurred in said county.

4. In , was the general contractor for the construction of Interstate between Drive and Drive in , . , a real estate developer, owned 11 1/2 acres located on Drive in County, , which required filling to a certain elevation to be commercially developed.

contacted and requested that allow it to use the property to dump construction debris, but declined, stating that the property was to be developed as a retail center, which would preclude the use of such fill materials as construction debris.

5. and executed a Letter Agreement under date of , Exhibit A attached, which provided that , in consideration of an ownership interest, would fill the property to the agreed elevation by with soil materials which would "contain no construction debris or refuse."

6. Said Limited Partnership Agreement specified that the Partnership was organized to "own, improve, and hold for investment or development certain real property to be contributed to the partnership by the General Partner" () and that the fill material would "consist solely of native soil materials and not include any type of construction debris or refuse."

7. Shortly after the execution of said letter, commenced filling the property, but, unknown to , , , caused 's land to be filled with construction debris, broken concrete pavement, broken asphalt pavement, steel reinforcing bars, bridge members, timbers, bricks, tree stumps, and other unsuitable material, which made the land completely unfit for economical commercial development of any kind.

Said Defendants fraudulently caused said improper construction debris to be covered with soil material, thus concealing said gross, wanton, and intentional breach of contract in order fraudulently to induce to accept said performance.

8. deliberately used 's land as a dump for the tons of construction debris generated as a result of performance of its contract for the construction of the new I- Highway Project from Drive to Drive.

9. and falsely represented to that had properly completed its duties under the Limited Partnership Agreement; and, relying on said representation, paid $00.00 to in consideration of release of its rights in the Partnership property.

10. Further relying on 's assurances of performance, and believing that had completed the performance, purchased 3 1/2 acres on the northwest corner of said property from and entered a lease with requiring to build a building and parking lot to the specifications of said tenant on said 3 1/2 acre tract.

11. As a result of tests conducted by soil engineers employed by said tenant, and first became aware of the concealed construction debris buried on the site and, accordingly, were required to completely excavate the building site at its own expense and, to date, has expended approximately $00.00 to do so.

12. , and personally, fraudulently and, with intent to deceive , deliberately placed, or caused to be placed, the organic material, rubble, broken concrete pavement, broken asphalt pavement, steel reinforcing bars, bridge members, timbers, bricks and other unacceptable materials on 's property and concealed their actions from .

13. Defendants knew full well that their actions in using 's valuable commercial property on Drive as a dumpsite for their construction debris would substantially destroy the commercial value of said property.

COUNT I

Breach of Contract

14. , under the Letter Agreement attached as Exhibit A and the Limited Partnership Agreement attached as Exhibit B, had a duty to fill 's land with native soil materials only and not with construction debris or refuse.

Wherefore, demands judgment against for all damages suffered as a result of said breach of contract in the sum of at least $00.00, plus prejudgment interest and costs.

COUNT II

Intentional Tort

15. , and fraudulently, deliberately, intentionally, and with actual malice destroyed the value of 's land by burying and concealing large amounts of construction debris and refuse on said land which rendered it unsuitable for commercial development without the expenditure of large sums of money for rectification.

COUNT III

Breach of Fiduciary Duty

16. As a result of the execution of Exhibits A and B, and the trust and confidence placed in in the joint development of the property as partners, owed a fiduciary duty to in this matter.

17. As a direct and proximate result of their wrongful actions herein, Defendants jointly and severally are liable to indemnify for its expenses to date for the curative work on said 3 1/2 acre tract in the amount of Dollars ($00.00) and for any further payments it may be required to make to for curative work on said soil, which is estimated to be Dollars ($00.00).

Additional Notes: