Assuming a case cannot be cleanly won on a Motion to Dismiss, Righi Fitch Law Group's litigation model seeks to apply significant pressure on plaintiffs by evaluating cases early and offering meaningful money before formal discovery to set up fee shifting. The attorneys at Righi Fitch Law Group are typically able to complete early evaluations in construction defect cases after initial visual inspections and some interaction with its experts. The attorneys at Righi Fitch Law Group make use of a market bid to help establish the cost of repair for problematic assemblies. Normally before the first mediation, the attorneys have a good estimate of the case value and are able to recommend authority from the insurance carrier to make a formal offer. Plaintiffs are typically not expecting a meaningful offer so early in a case. The number the attorneys recommend is what they call the "sweet spot" of the case. It is a number high enough that they have a good chance of beating it at trial or arbitration; but low enough that if the plaintiff takes it, they have a good settlement result - especially considering how much money they save on litigation costs.
Righi Fitch Law Group's innovative litigation model is illustrated in its representation of Lexington/Chartis in Capital Pacific v. Alls. Capital Pacific Homes of Arizona, LLC (Cap Pac) was sued for construction defects in 42 homes; specifically, that the concrete foundations and flatwork were being eroded by sulfate (salt) attack. Lexington/Chartis had been assigned to the remaining warranty obligations of Cap Pac.
As they normally do, the attorneys at Righi Fitch Law Group negotiated an Arbitration Agreement with Plaintiff that also acted as a Case Management Order. The Agreement contemplated a one year process. The attorneys at Righi Fitch Law Group scheduled and attended visual inspections with local experts; they conferred with their experts, and evaluated the case. They made a very early global offer that was not accepted. The attorneys at Righi Fitch Law Group then offered significantly less than their initial offer to Plaintiff, which was accepted. Based on prior experience of working with Righi Fitch Law Group, Plaintiff's attorney knew that Righi Fitch Law Group would stick to the second offer number and take the case all the way through to arbitration if it was not accepted.
The entire case settled for $240,000.00, or $5,714.00 per home. This is the lowest settlement of similar cases in Arizona to date, and it was achieved before a single deposition was taken. A look at the numbers underscores the savings:
|Total Litigation Budget||$847,500|
|Total Litigation Costs Incurred||$109,958|
|Total Litigation Cost Savings||$737,542|
|Homeowners' Cost of Repair||$615,100|
|Homeowners' Initial Demand||$880,000|
|Our Initial Offer which was Rejected||$320,000|
|Total Savings from our Initial Offer||$80,000|
|Total Savings from Plaintiff's Initial Demand||$640,000|