Brieck Construction Inc. review: Solicitation of fraud and breach of contract 2

DETAILS OF MY COMPLAINT AGAINST BREICK

This document is submitted to the California Contractors State License Board for action.

This is a complaint about Generation Contracting and Emergency Services, Inc., AKA Brieck Construction, Inc., AKA Brieck Construction and Restoration, (Brieck). Brieck was hired to perform certain repairs on my house covered by my insurance company, State Farm Insurance Company. In my opinion Brieck has demonstrated a lack of integrity and actual dishonesty in dealings with me and State Farm. Brieck has solicited fraud against State Farm and openly and admittedly breached a contract with me. Brieck seems to put its own interest above State Farm’s and Brieck’s own customers with no consideration of ethics especially in situations in which Brieck perceives its interests to differ.

Brieck solicited and coerced me to sign a State Farm “Authorization To Pay” form, stating that the job was finished, allowing Brieck to get paid by State Farm, knowing and admitting that the job was not yet completed. When I protested and told Brieck how uncomfortable I was to provide my signature, Brieck made promises regarding this job and another, unrelated job. They have not fulfilled those promises. I believe Brieck cannot be trusted and is not honest or ethical.

To understand the sequence of events and the situation, I must describe a second job Brieck was performing for me, as well as the job involving the claim with State Farm. Since the job involving the claim with State Farm is a result of vandalism to my house, I shall call it the Vandalism Contract.

The other contract with Brieck involved destroying and removing a wooden, patio cover in the back of our house and removing and rebuilding a shed on the side of the house. I shall refer to this as the Shed Contract. The following is the sequence of events.

Upon signing the Shed Contract Brieck was paid a substantial down payment. Before December 1, 2006, the date of the vandalism, Brieck destroyed and removed the back patio cover, as required in the Shed Contract. Since my neighbor and I planned to remove and rebuild the side fence which separates our properties and since that fence forms one of the walls of the shed, Brieck and I agreed to not initiate the work on the shed until after the fence was replaced.

When my house was vandalized, I selected Brieck to do the repairs, since we were already working with Brieck and had used Brieck in the past, and since Brieck was on State Farm’s Premier Service Program list. Brieck performed many of the repairs themselves, and hired a subcontractor to repair and reseal the saltillo tiles. As I remember the timing, by the end of the year (2006) everything was completed on the Vandalism Contract except the cleaning and resealing of the saltillo tiles.

Before the end of the year Kevin Burgess, the estimator for Brieck, asked me to sign papers terminating the Shed Contract and settling the money situation, so that Brieck would not have the Shed Contract still open at the end of the year. Brieck promised to refund any excess I paid which was not earned by Brieck and provide me with an accounting to show what was charged and what was paid. This accounting was done

The tile subcontractors had to clean and reseal tile on my patio and on a walkway. In the cleaning process they created a white discoloration in the tiles on the patio. After five or six attempts by this subcontractor, most of white discoloration in the patio area has been cleared.

They then began cleaning on the walkway tile. A lot of discoloration on the walkway was created and still remains. Nevertheless they proceeded to seal both areas anyway. Both the patio area and the walkway continue to have the white discoloration.

There is a second problem with the tile: in the patio area near the house, white bubbles formed shortly after the sealing. When these bubbles are broken, the entire seal peals off from the area of the bubbles and beyond. The subcontractor came back, cleaned the bubble area and resealed it. The bubbles have again returned. Both of these problems still have not been remedied, and Brieck and Brieck’s subcontractor have given up on solving this problem.

On the termination of the Shed Contract in late December and on several additional occasions I explained to Kevin and also to Rick Montell, the Project Manager, that I was about to sign a contract with a fence company to replace the fence. Once this fence replacement contract was signed and scheduled, I wanted Brieck to take down and remove that portion of the shed which was attached to or over the fence, since the fence company had not contracted to do so. I explained repeatedly to Rick and Kevin that I needed them to do this job. They agreed on behalf of Brieck and indeed it was part of the original, now-cancelled Shed Contract. I told them I wanted the least amount of time possible between the removal of the shed and the erection of the new fence, so that my firewood would not be exposed to any possible rain. I asked how much notice they needed. Brieck told me a few days. Each time I talked to Brieck in late December, in January, and again in February, they promised that they needed only a few days notice to remove at least that portion of the shed interfering with the fence replacement.

In January, 2007 Rick visited me. He acknowledged that the Vandalism Contract was not complete, but asked me to sign the authorization stating I was satisfied so Brieck could collect from State Farm. He repeatedly promised me on behalf of Brieck that the tile problems would be fixed. He said I could take his personal word for it. I told him there were still problems with the tile. He agreed but asked me again to sign. I told him it was against my better judgment to sign when the job is not completed. He said Brieck would handle it under the warranty. I reluctantly signed, relying on Brieck’s promise. At that time I thought Brieck could be trusted.

On February 12, 2007, I was informed by the fence company they would start work on Monday, February 19, 2007. I immediately called Rick and told him the shed (or at least the part over the fence) had to be removed that week. Rick said Kevin would call me, but gave no indication there was any problem. Kevin did not call.

By midday on Thursday, I called Kevin. Kevin informed me that Brieck was unhappy with me for not signing the authorization on the Vandalism Contract. Kevin indicated that Brieck was not going to fulfill their promises and had not even planned to inform me! Brieck planned to “punish” me by not tearing down the shed and not even telling me they would not tear down the shed, all for not signing the authorization! I told Kevin I had signed the authorization. In fact he found the signed authorization in his own paperwork.

Then Kevin said Brieck would not remove the shed unless they had a contract signed by me before they started. He offered to have the workmen bring me the contract in the morning, but only if I agreed to sign it before they started work. I refused, because I will not sign a contract without having the opportunity to read it and consider its contents. (Brieck’s contracts are lengthy.) Kevin said they would not work without a signed contract; he said he would check internally. At 4:30 p.m. on that Thursday, I received a call from “Scott with Brieck.” He did not give me his last name, nor indicate what position he occupies with Brieck. Scott informed me Brieck required a signed contract before they would do any work.

The end result was Brieck, after repeatedly promising they would remove the shed, needing only a few days notice, left me without any resources to remove the shed with only one working day left to get it done. Brieck promised me they would remove the shed and then put me under impossible time pressure to sign a contract without having the opportunity to read and think about the contract, evidently because Brieck falsely believed I had not signed the authorization form. So much for Brieck’s promises!

With regard to the Vandalism Contract the two problems with the tile remain, but I do not plan to work with Brieck anymore for any reason.

To summarize Brieck has not completed the work satisfactorily. In my opinion Brieck has not been honest or ethical in their dealings with me. They induced me with false promises and put strong pressure on me to authorize payment when in fact the job was not satisfactorily completed. Brieck in essence solicited me to commit fraud against State farm. Brieck has made promises to me and have not fulfilled those promises. If it is in their interests, they even admit that they would do the same again.

I do not seek arbitration or damages. I seek discipline against Brieck.

Sincerely,
David B. Himelstein