Our client is one of the major contracting companies that previously entered into a contract with a real estate developer to construct a residential complex. Among the contracting tasks was the installation of large-capacity water tanks. The project was completed and fully delivered to the developer.
Five years after the project’s completion, our client was surprised to receive a claim for damages amounting to 8 million dirhams from the developer. The claim alleged that the main water tank exploded due to a 6 cm tilt in its supporting base, which purportedly caused excessive pressure on the tank’s sides.
Our client engaged us to represent them in this case. Upon reviewing the claim documents which were nearly 150 documents , including contracts, agreements, and electronic correspondence with the tank maintenance company.
After analyzing the case documents and consulting with our company’s engineers, we determined that the type of water tank involved requires routine maintenance every 120 days. Additionally, we found several communications between the maintenance company and the developer indicating that there had been water leakage from the tank. In one correspondence, the maintenance company requested the developer to renew their contract for ongoing maintenance, but this request was ignored by the developer.
We submitted our defense to the court based on the following points: the water tank requires regular maintenance every 120 days, and the developing company failed to perform this maintenance for 900 days. Consequently, the real estate developer is responsible for the tank’s explosion due to neglecting routine upkeep. We requested the court to appoint an engineering expert to validate our defense.
The court appointed an engineering expert, who visited the site of the tank’s wreckage. The expert discovered evidence of unprofessional repairs to water leaks in the debris. In his report, he stated that a slight tilt in the tank’s supporting base could not have caused the explosion. He concluded that the explosion resulted from the lack of regular maintenance, as the tank had gone without care for 900 days. He also noted the presence of unprofessional leak repair attempts in the wreckage. The expert subsequently submitted his report to the court handling the case.
The court issued a ruling rejecting the compensation claim, based on our defense for our client, which was supported by the expert’s report. This ruling was upheld by both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.
If you have any legal inquiries, please do not hesitate to contact us for a consultation with our skilled attorneys, who are dedicated to protecting your rights and the interests of your company
No comment