logo

Last Update

This profile was last updated on 8/14/2017 and contains contributions from the  Zoominfo Community.

is this you? Claim your profile.

Wrong Taylor Morrison?

Taylor W. Morrison

Internet Home Consultant

Taylor Morrison Home Corporation

HQ Phone:  (480) 840-8100

Direct Phone: (704) ***-****direct phone

Email: t***@***.com

GET ZOOMINFO GROW

+ Get 10 Free Contacts a Month

Please agree to the terms and conditions.

I agree to the  Terms of Service and  Privacy Policy. I understand that I will receive a subscription to ZoomInfo Grow at no charge in exchange for downloading and installing the ZoomInfo Contact Contributor utility which, among other features, involves sharing my business contacts as well as headers and signature blocks from emails that I receive.

THANK YOU FOR DOWNLOADING!

computers
  • 1.Download
    ZoomInfo Grow
    v sign
  • 2.Run Installation
    Wizard
  • 3.Check your inbox to
    Sign in to ZoomInfo Grow

I agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. I understand that I will receive a subscription to ZoomInfo Community Edition at no charge in exchange for downloading and installing the ZoomInfo Contact Contributor utility which, among other features, involves sharing my business contacts as well as headers and signature blocks from emails that I receive.

Taylor Morrison Home Corporation

4900 N. Scottsdale Road Suite 2000

Scottsdale, Arizona,85251

United States

Company Description

Taylor Morrison Home Corporation (NYSE: TMHC) is a leading national homebuilder and developer that has been recognized as the 2016 and 2017 America's Most Trusted Home Builder by Lifestory Research. Based in Scottsdale, Arizona we operate under two well-establ...more

Background Information

Employment History

Portfolio Partner

DMB Pacific Ventures LLC


Support Escalation Engineer

Microsoft Corporation


Geek Squad Supervisor

Best Buy Co. , Inc.


Server Engineer

D.R. Horton , Inc.


Shipping and Receiving Coordinator @ CHEP

Aerotek Inc


Freelance Author Illustrator

National Oceanic and Atmospheric


Affiliations

Morrison Homes Inc

Chief Financial Officer


Inner City Arts

Board of Governors Member


Arizona

Board of Regents Member


Education

BFA

Rhode Island School of Design


Premier Master


Releases Master Plan


Web References(125 Total References)


Colorado Construction Litigation: 2014

www.coloradoconstructionlitigation.com [cached]

Taylor Morrison v. Terracon and the Homeowner Protection Act of 2007
On January 30, 2014, the Colorado Court of Appeals decided the case of Taylor Morrison of Colorado, Inc. v. Bemas Construction, Inc. and Terracon Consultants, Inc . 2014WL323490. The case addressed a substantial issue of Colorado constitutional law, as well as a variety of procedural issues of potential importance to construction litigation attorneys. Of particular interest is the question of whether the provisions of the 2007 Homeowner Protection Act ("HPA") are limited in application to contracts between residential homeowners and construction professionals, or whether they have broader application between commercial construction professional parties as well. As discussed below, the Court of Appeals stated that it would not answer the question, and then, separately, implied that the statute might only apply to homeowner transactions - with the resulting exclusion of commercial transactions. However, after its analysis, it left the actual decision of that issue to a future court in a later case. The factual background for the case involved claims of breach of a contract for soils engineering by Terracon Consultants, Inc. ("Terracon") and negligent excavation work by Bemas Construction, Inc. ("Bemas"). Plaintiff was Taylor Morrison of Colorado ("Taylor Morrison"), the developer and general contractor for a residential subdivision called Homestead Hills. After it constructed many homes, Taylor Morrison began to receive complaints of cracking drywall resulting from foundation movement and it made repairs at significant expense. Taylor Morrison then filed suit against Terracon and Bemas in connection with their respective roles in the original construction.


Colorado Construction Litigation: June 2014

www.coloradoconstructionlitigation.com [cached]

Taylor Morrison v. Terracon and the Homeowner Protection Act of 2007
On January 30, 2014, the Colorado Court of Appeals decided the case of Taylor Morrison of Colorado, Inc. v. Bemas Construction, Inc. and Terracon Consultants, Inc . 2014WL323490. The case addressed a substantial issue of Colorado constitutional law, as well as a variety of procedural issues of potential importance to construction litigation attorneys. Of particular interest is the question of whether the provisions of the 2007 Homeowner Protection Act ("HPA") are limited in application to contracts between residential homeowners and construction professionals, or whether they have broader application between commercial construction professional parties as well. As discussed below, the Court of Appeals stated that it would not answer the question, and then, separately, implied that the statute might only apply to homeowner transactions - with the resulting exclusion of commercial transactions. However, after its analysis, it left the actual decision of that issue to a future court in a later case. The factual background for the case involved claims of breach of a contract for soils engineering by Terracon Consultants, Inc. ("Terracon") and negligent excavation work by Bemas Construction, Inc. ("Bemas"). Plaintiff was Taylor Morrison of Colorado ("Taylor Morrison"), the developer and general contractor for a residential subdivision called Homestead Hills. After it constructed many homes, Taylor Morrison began to receive complaints of cracking drywall resulting from foundation movement and it made repairs at significant expense. Taylor Morrison then filed suit against Terracon and Bemas in connection with their respective roles in the original construction. Terracon defended in part by asserting that the HPA provisions that nullified limitations of liability were only applicable in contracts as between homeowners and construction professionals. The heart of that argument was that Taylor Morrison was not a homeowner and for that reason could not defeat Terracon's contractual limitation of liability for a specific dollar amount. Terracon also defended in part by arguing that the HPA was being applied to its contract retrospectively, in violation of Article 11 of the Colorado Constitution. Taylor Morrison responded to these defenses by attempting to amend its pleadings to assert separate claims against Terracon for gross negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud. However, the trial court judge denied this attempt to amend because it was so late in the case. Taylor Morrison then challenged Terracon's defenses that the HPA was inapplicable to the Terracon contract. The trial court agreed that the HPA only applied to transactions between homeowners and construction professionals. It held that Terracon's contract with Taylor Morrison did not violate the HPA for that reason, and Terracon's limitation of liability was valid. Terracon thereafter deposited the maximum amount that Taylor Morrison could recover under the limitation of liability in the contract in the trial court's registry, and the trial court then dismissed Taylor Morrison's claims against Terracon. Bemas proceeded to trial and received a defense verdict on the merits. Taylor Morrison's appeal sought a new trial of the Terracon issues, but also sought a new trial against Bemas. Its argument for a full re-trial was that Bemas had an unfair advantage in trying its case with an "empty chair" that should have been occupied by Terracon. The appellate court disagreed, saying that the issues involving Terracon were distinct from those involving Bemas, and that a partial re-trial of the issues involving only Terracon involved no inherent unfairness to Taylor Morrison. In the absence of clear prejudice to Taylor Morrison, the Court refused to allow the re-trial of Bemas. The appellate court addressed the matter of the trial court's refusal to consider evidence that Terracon's conduct was willful and wanton and/or grossly negligent, as alleged. While the appellate court did not clearly reverse the trial court's ruling that denied Taylor Morrison's amended complaint, it did hold that Taylor Morrison had the right to contest Terracon's defenses by offering proof of such misconduct, because it would potentially invalidate Terracon's limitation of liability. The Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings on whether Taylor Morrison's claims of Terracon's willful and wanton conduct were sufficient to overcome Terracon's limitation of liability argument. Taylor Morrison v. Terracon: Adjustment of Verdicts to Account for Others' Liability and Contractual Limitation of Liability Clauses Taylor Morrison v. Terracon and the Homeowner Prot...


Colorado Construction Litigation: 2017

www.coloradoconstructionlitigation.com [cached]

Taylor Morrison v. Terracon: Adjustment of Verdicts to Account for Others' Liability and Contractual Limitation of Liability Clauses
In a case of first impression, a division of the Colorado Court of Appeals weighed in on how a trial court should adjust a jury verdict against a contractor when two critical components are still at play: (1) a setoff from other liable parties and (2) a clause in the contract limiting liability. In short, the court concluded the correct approach is to first apply the setoff against the jury verdict and then apply the contractual limitation against the recoverable amount. The facts in Taylor Morrison of Colorado, Inc. v. Terracon Consultants, Inc. , 2017 COA 64, highlight the massive difference in what order the court factors in the setoff from the contractual liability. In this case, Taylor Morrison of Colorado, Inc. ("Taylor Morrison"), was the developer of a residential subdivision. Terracon Consultants, Inc. ("Terracon") was the geotechnical engineering firm which performed services at the project. In a written contract, Terracon was responsible for testing the soil for compliance with project specifications and building codes. Taylor Morrison and Terracon further agreed to place a cap on Terracon's total liability to Taylor Morrison at $550,000 for any and all damages or expenses arising out of its services or the contract. Several years after Terracon performed its work, the homeowners sued Taylor Morrison alleging cracks in the drywall of their houses, and Taylor Morrison in turn sued Terracon and various subcontractors for damages relating to those defects. Among other reasons, Taylor Morrison attempted to void the limitation of liability clause on the ground that Terracon's conduct was willful and wanton. The court dismissed Terracon after it depositing $550,000 in the court registry. Taylor Morrison proceeded to trial against other subcontractors and settled for $592,000 with remaining subcontractors. Taylor Morrison appealed the court's dismissal of its willful and wanton claim Terracon on the ground that it should have been allowed to introduce evidence of Terracon's willful and wanton conduct so as to void the limitation of liability clause. The appellate court remanded the case to determine whether Taylor Morrison should have been allowed to introduce such evidence. The trial court concluded that Taylor Morrison should have been able to, so it ordered a new trial against Terracon alone. At the trial, the jury awarded Taylor Morrison $9,586,056 in damages. Despite the large verdict, after reviewing post-trial briefings, the court entered a final judgment of zero dollars due from Terracon to Taylor Morrison. The trial court arrived at this result by applying the contractual limitation of liability to reduce the jury verdict of $9,586,056 down to the limitation of $550,000. Finally, it then deducted the $592,500 setoff from the prior settlement from the other parties against the $550,000 to arrive at zero dollars owed. Taylor Morrison appealed again and contended that the trial court erroneously deducted the $592,500 setoff from Terracon's contractual limitation of liability of $550,000 rather than deducting the setoff from the $9,586,056 jury damages verdict. The appellate court agreed. Consequently, the court concluded that the trial court must first apply the setoff against the jury verdict to ascertain the allowable amount of recovery, and then apply any contractual limitation against this reduced amount. "This approach prevents double recovery by the plaintiff, preserves the parties' right to have the terms of a contract enforced, and best gives effect to the jury verdict. Taylor, 2017 COA 64, ¶ 25. In application, this would mean the court should have applied the $592,500 setoff to the $9,586,057 jury verdict. This would have resulted in a new total of $8,993,556. The trial court then should have applied limitation of liability and reached a final judgment of $550,000 due from Terracon to Taylor Morrison.


Colorado Construction Litigation: May 2017

www.coloradoconstructionlitigation.com [cached]

Taylor Morrison v. Terracon: Adjustment of Verdicts to Account for Others' Liability and Contractual Limitation of Liability Clauses
In a case of first impression, a division of the Colorado Court of Appeals weighed in on how a trial court should adjust a jury verdict against a contractor when two critical components are still at play: (1) a setoff from other liable parties and (2) a clause in the contract limiting liability. In short, the court concluded the correct approach is to first apply the setoff against the jury verdict and then apply the contractual limitation against the recoverable amount. The facts in Taylor Morrison of Colorado, Inc. v. Terracon Consultants, Inc. , 2017 COA 64, highlight the massive difference in what order the court factors in the setoff from the contractual liability. In this case, Taylor Morrison of Colorado, Inc. ("Taylor Morrison"), was the developer of a residential subdivision. Terracon Consultants, Inc. ("Terracon") was the geotechnical engineering firm which performed services at the project. In a written contract, Terracon was responsible for testing the soil for compliance with project specifications and building codes. Taylor Morrison and Terracon further agreed to place a cap on Terracon's total liability to Taylor Morrison at $550,000 for any and all damages or expenses arising out of its services or the contract. Several years after Terracon performed its work, the homeowners sued Taylor Morrison alleging cracks in the drywall of their houses, and Taylor Morrison in turn sued Terracon and various subcontractors for damages relating to those defects. Among other reasons, Taylor Morrison attempted to void the limitation of liability clause on the ground that Terracon's conduct was willful and wanton. The court dismissed Terracon after it depositing $550,000 in the court registry. Taylor Morrison proceeded to trial against other subcontractors and settled for $592,000 with remaining subcontractors. Taylor Morrison appealed the court's dismissal of its willful and wanton claim Terracon on the ground that it should have been allowed to introduce evidence of Terracon's willful and wanton conduct so as to void the limitation of liability clause. The appellate court remanded the case to determine whether Taylor Morrison should have been allowed to introduce such evidence. The trial court concluded that Taylor Morrison should have been able to, so it ordered a new trial against Terracon alone. At the trial, the jury awarded Taylor Morrison $9,586,056 in damages. Despite the large verdict, after reviewing post-trial briefings, the court entered a final judgment of zero dollars due from Terracon to Taylor Morrison. The trial court arrived at this result by applying the contractual limitation of liability to reduce the jury verdict of $9,586,056 down to the limitation of $550,000. Finally, it then deducted the $592,500 setoff from the prior settlement from the other parties against the $550,000 to arrive at zero dollars owed. Taylor Morrison appealed again and contended that the trial court erroneously deducted the $592,500 setoff from Terracon's contractual limitation of liability of $550,000 rather than deducting the setoff from the $9,586,056 jury damages verdict. The appellate court agreed. Consequently, the court concluded that the trial court must first apply the setoff against the jury verdict to ascertain the allowable amount of recovery, and then apply any contractual limitation against this reduced amount. "This approach prevents double recovery by the plaintiff, preserves the parties' right to have the terms of a contract enforced, and best gives effect to the jury verdict. Taylor, 2017 COA 64, ¶ 25. In application, this would mean the court should have applied the $592,500 setoff to the $9,586,057 jury verdict. This would have resulted in a new total of $8,993,556. The trial court then should have applied limitation of liability and reached a final judgment of $550,000 due from Terracon to Taylor Morrison. Taylor Morrison v. Terracon: Adjustment of Verdicts to Account for Others' Liability and Contractual Limitation of Liability Clauses Taylor Morrison v. Terracon: Adjustment of Verdict...


Colorado Construction Litigation: 2009

www.coloradoconstructionlitigation.com [cached]

Taylor Morrison v. Terracon: Adjustment of Verdicts to Account for Others' Liability and Contractual Limitation of Liability Clauses


Similar Profiles

city

Browse ZoomInfo's Business
Contact Directory by City

city

Browse ZoomInfo's
Business People Directory

city

Browse ZoomInfo's
Advanced Company Directory