This case involves a significant construction project at a casino. The owners of the facility and their management team hired a well-regarded construction management firm to oversee the project, maintain relations with all subcontractors, and approve of work and payment disbursements. A new chiller plant was installed and expected to be used in the new structures created by the construction project. However, a decision was made to have this chiller plant lend some capability to an existing structure as well, which housed millions of dollars’ worth of security equipment and monitoring systems for the casino facility. Unfortunately, the chiller plant was not properly arranged, and a defective temperature control bypass valve was inadequately utilized. This resulted in significant water damage to the security instrumentation systems and many millions of dollars’ worth of complex infrastructure was ruined. The general construction management firm has denied liability and asserts that they weren’t the installer of the chiller, and as a result claims that they were not responsible for the inadequate arrangement. However, the plaintiff asserts that the general construction management firm was paid a fee to carefully monitor and assess this project – which they believe falls into the scope of work as outlined by their contracts.