- 8 -
9. Sometime in 1981 or 1982, CID began using
outside investigators other than plaintiffs in Oregon,
Washington, Idaho, Utah and Montana for cases which
should have been assigned to plaintiffs under the
agreement. This practice continued up to the present.
This practice was in breach of defendants' agreement
with plaintiffs.
* * * * * * *
16. In May, 1984, Mr. Conn on behalf of all
defendants promised plaintiffs that agreements between
plaintiffs and defendants would be extended for a
period of two years. * * *
* * * * * * *
18. On November 9, 1984, Ronald Burlison wrote a
letter to plaintiffs stating that they should "cease
all work" on defendants' files. Since that time defen-
dants have assigned no cases to plaintiffs.
* * * * * * *
20. Defendants breached their agreements with
plaintiffs as follows:
a) CID failed to assign to plaintiffs all
of its investigations done by outside investigators in
Oregon, Washington, Utah, Montana and Idaho, from
December 1980 to May, 1986.
* * * * * * *
21. Plaintiffs were damaged by defendants'
breaches as follows:
* * * * * * *
b) They lost profits on investigations
defendants assigned to other investigators from 1981 to
May, 1986, in the approximate amount of $5.5 million.
* * * * * * *
22. Defendants repeatedly made false misrepresen-
tations to plaintiffs and concealed the true state of
affairs from plaintiffs with the knowledge and intent
that plaintiffs would rely on the representations to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011