CRAZY CIVIL COURT ← Back
Case Icon
OKLAHOMA COUNTY • CJ-2026-1230

Milhaus Construction, LLC v. C. Ford Electric, LLC

Filed: Feb 17, 2026
Type: CJ

What's This Case About?

Let’s get one thing straight: someone installed the wrong goddamn wire. Not a typo on an invoice. Not a late delivery. A fundamental, boneheaded, how-did-this-make-it-past-a-high-school-electricity-unit mistake—running 40-amp wire where 50-amp was required—on a multi-million-dollar apartment project. And now, because of that, one construction company is suing an electrical contractor for over a million bucks. That’s right—$1.15 million—over what amounts to a mismatched wire and a cascade of construction chaos. Welcome to the Silos Apartments in Edmond, Oklahoma, where the drama isn’t about rent or noisy neighbors, but about who’s paying for the electrician’s screw-up.

So who are these people? On one side, we’ve got Milhaus Construction, LLC, a fancy Indiana-based development firm that’s been turning old warehouses into hipster lofts from Indianapolis to Denver. They’re the kind of company that puts “sustainability” in their mission statement and probably has a Slack channel called #vibecheck. They’re the general contractor here—the big boss of the build, the one responsible for making sure every trade shows up on time, does the job right, and doesn’t turn the whole thing into a fire hazard. And then there’s C. Ford Electric, LLC, an Oklahoma-based electrical subcontractor—the crew hired to handle all things sparky. They’re the ones supposed to read the plans, pull the correct wire, pass inspection, and get out of the way so the drywall guys can do their thing. They had a contract worth nearly $4.9 million—not chump change—to wire up “The Silos Apartments,” a swanky new complex in downtown Edmond, probably marketed as “industrial-chic” with exposed brick and artisanal coffee nearby. It was supposed to be a straightforward job. Instead, it became a construction dumpster fire.

Here’s how it went down. Back in May 2022, Milhaus and C. Ford signed the deal. All good. Work began. But soon, things started going sideways. Not just a little off-schedule—no, we’re talking critical path delays. That’s construction-speak for “you’re holding up everyone else.” Electricians are usually mid-project players, but if they’re late, the whole chain collapses. Painters can’t come in. HVAC can’t be tested. Drywall gets scratched. Money burns. And Milhaus says C. Ford wasn’t just slow—they were chronically behind, missing deadlines, dragging their feet, and generally gumming up the works. By February 2025, Milhaus had had enough. They sent a formal Notice of Default, giving C. Ford four days to get their act together. They didn’t. No response. No plan. No effort to fix the delays. So on February 20, 2025—literally the same day this lawsuit was filed—Milhaus pulled the plug and terminated C. Ford for cause. That’s the nuclear option in construction. It means: you’ve failed so badly, we’re kicking you off the job and finishing it ourselves. And guess what? When they started inspecting the work C. Ford had done, they found the whopper: 40-amp wire where 50-amp was required for the HVAC units in the apartments. That’s not just a clerical error. That’s a safety issue. That’s a “your AC might overheat and your insurance won’t cover it” issue. That’s a “this could literally catch fire” issue.

So Milhaus did what any contractor would do—they brought in a new electrician to rip out the bad wiring. But here’s the kicker: to get to those wires, they had to tear up walls, remove insulation, rip out drywall, and dismantle HVAC units—work that had already been done and paid for by other subcontractors. So now, not only are they paying someone else to fix C. Ford’s wiring, they’re also paying to redo work that wasn’t even broken—just in the way of the fix. That’s like having to demolish your kitchen to replace a faulty dishwasher you never should’ve installed in the first place. And it’s expensive. Like, really expensive. Milhaus claims they’ve already spent $1,152,836.56—yes, down to the penny—on cleanup, rework, delays, and hiring replacement electricians. That’s more than a million bucks to correct a mistake that should’ve been caught by anyone with a basic understanding of electrical codes.

Now, why are they in court? Legally, Milhaus is making two big claims. First: Breach of Contract. That’s a fancy way of saying, “You promised to do the job on time and to code, and you didn’t.” The contract specifically required C. Ford to follow the project schedule, do quality work, and not mess things up for other trades. They allegedly failed on all counts. Second: Negligence. This one’s a bit broader—it means C. Ford didn’t just break the contract, they were careless in how they did their job. They owed Milhaus a duty to do things right, and they didn’t. And because of that carelessness, Milhaus had to spend a small fortune to clean up the mess. Both claims are asking for the same thing: that C. Ford pay up for the damages they caused.

And what do they want? Over $1.15 million in damages—plus interest, court costs, and attorney fees. Is that a lot? In most people’s worlds, yes. That’s yacht money. That’s “buy a small town” money. But in the world of commercial construction? It’s actually… not insane. Remember, this was a nearly $5 million electrical contract. A million-dollar overage to fix defective work and delays? That’s painful, but not unheard of. In fact, in big construction projects, these kinds of disputes happen all the time. The real question isn’t whether the amount is outrageous—it’s whether C. Ford actually deserves to pay it. Did they really install the wrong wire? Were they really that late? Did Milhaus give them a fair chance to fix it? Those are the facts a court will have to sort out. But based on the filing, Milhaus is not messing around. They’ve got receipts, they’ve got a termination notice, and they’ve got a very specific dollar amount they want back.

Now, here’s our take: the most absurd part of this whole mess isn’t even the wire. It’s the silence. Milhaus says they sent a Notice of Default. Gave C. Ford four days to fix things. Nothing. No call. No email. No “Hey, we’re behind, but here’s our plan.” Just… radio silence. In business, that’s not just unprofessional—it’s borderline disrespectful. You don’t ghost a $4.9 million contract. And if the wire thing is true? That’s not a minor mistake. That’s a fundamental failure in quality control. You don’t need to be an electrician to know that undersized wiring is a fire risk. You do need to be paying attention. And if C. Ford wasn’t, then yeah, they probably owe the money. But also—let’s not pretend Milhaus is some innocent bystander. They’re the general contractor. They’re supposed to be overseeing the work. Inspections happen. Progress meetings happen. Someone should’ve caught this before the HVAC units were installed and the walls were sealed up. So while C. Ford may have dropped the ball, Milhaus might’ve been asleep at the wheel too. Still, once you terminate someone for cause and have to spend over a million fixing their mess? You’re gonna want someone to pay. And in this case, Milhaus is pointing straight at C. Ford.

Bottom line: this isn’t a murder mystery. No one’s in handcuffs. But in the world of construction law, this is high drama. A million-dollar dispute over wire gauge, missed deadlines, and professional pride. And somewhere in Edmond, a brand-new apartment building stands half-finished, its walls torn open, its electrical guts exposed—because two companies can’t agree on who’s responsible for doing the damn job right. We’re entertainers, not lawyers. But if we were betting? We’d say someone needs a refresher course in basic electrical code. And maybe a better alarm system for their work calendar.

Case Overview

$1,152,837 Demand Petition
Jurisdiction
District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma
Relief Sought
$1,152,837 Monetary
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Claims
# Cause of Action Description
1 Breach of Contract Plaintiff alleges Defendant breached contract by failing to adhere to project schedule and performing deficient work.
2 Negligence Plaintiff alleges Defendant was negligent in performing work on the project, causing damage and additional costs.

Petition Text

1,032 words
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA MILHAUS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) C. FORD ELECTRIC, LLC, ) ) Defendant. PETITION Plaintiff, Milhaus Construction, LLC ("Milhaus"), for its petition against Defendant, C. Ford Electric, LLC ("C. Ford"), alleges and states as follows: PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Milhaus is an Indiana limited liability company registered and authorized to transact business in the State of Oklahoma. 2. C. Ford is an Oklahoma limited liability company. 3. Milhaus and C. Ford contracted to perform certain construction work in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. Thus, venue and jurisdiction are proper with this Court. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 4. On or about May 17, 2022, Milhaus and C. Ford entered into a written subcontract ("Subcontract") in the amount of $4,879,251.00 for the performance of electrical work on the project known as, The Silos Apartments, located at 104 West Main Street, Edmond, OK 73034 (the "Project"). 5. During the course of the Project, C. Ford failed to adhere to the Project's critical path schedule as required by its Subcontract, causing delays and interfering with and/or halting the work of other trades. 6. On February 6, 2025, pursuant to Article 3.5 of the Subcontract, Milhaus issued a Notice of Default to C. Ford for failure to adhere to the Project Schedule. C. Ford was given until February 10, 2025, to cure the delinquencies outlined in the Notice. C. Ford failed to remedy these delinquencies or even respond to the Notice. 7. As a result, on February 20, 2025, pursuant to Article 7.2.1 of the Subcontract, Milhaus issued a Notice of Termination for Cause to C. Ford effective that same day. At the time of C. Ford’s termination, there were $673,541.79 in funds remaining under C. Ford’s Subcontract. Article 7.2.1 of the Subcontract provides: If the Subcontractor fails or neglects to carry out the Work in accordance with the Subcontract Documents, fails or neglects to comply with the Project Schedule, causes delay, interferes or halts the Work of the Contractor or other subcontractors, fails to supply enough properly skilled workers or proper materials, becomes bankrupt, insolvent or goes into liquidation (either voluntary or court-ordered), or otherwise fails to perform in accordance with this Subcontract and fails within a three-day period after receipt of notice to commence and continue correction of such default or neglect with diligence and promptness, the Contractor may, by notice to the Subcontractor and without prejudice to any other remedy the Contractor may have, terminate the Subcontract and finish the Subcontractor’s Work by whatever method the Contract may deem expedient. If the unpaid balance of the Subcontract Sum exceeds the expense of finishing the Subcontractor’s Work and other damages incurred by the Contractor and not expressly waived, including but not limited to attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred by the Contractor in connection with the Subcontractor’s termination, such excess shall be paid to the Subcontractor. If such expense and damages exceed the unpaid balance of the Subcontract Sum, the Subcontractor shall pay the difference to the Contractor immediately upon demand. (emphasis added) 8. As a result of C. Ford’s default, Milhaus was forced to retain replacement contractors to complete C. Ford’s scope of work, incurring additional costs. Milhaus also incurred significant expense reworking deficiencies discovered in C. Ford’s completed work after C. Ford’s termination – namely, C. Ford installed 40A wire running from panels to the HVAC in apartment units when 50A wire was required under the contract documents. In addition to the cost of the replacement wire, Milhaus also incurred significant costs removing and reinstalling previously completed and accepted work from other trades to access the deficient wiring. The costs to tear out and install correct 50A wire are physical injuries to tangible property. 9. As a result of C. Ford’s default, deficient work, and the necessity to remove installed existing work, Milhaus has incurred $1,152,836.56 in costs to date. COUNT I – BREACH OF CONTRACT 10. Milhaus incorporates and realleges all previous paragraphs herein. 11. Pursuant to the Subcontract between Milhaus and C. Ford, C. Ford agreed to perform its work on the Project in a workmanlike manner and in accordance with all plans, specifications and building code requirements and in adherence to the Project schedule. 12. C. Ford breached the terms of its Subcontract by failing to adhere to the Project schedule, failing to remedy its default, and failing to perform its work in a good and workmanlike manner and in accordance with the plans, specifications and applicable building codes. As a result, Milhaus was forced to terminate C. Ford and engage replacement subcontractors to remove existing work, fix, and complete C. Ford’s scope of work on the Project. 13. Further, the deficient work performed by C. Ford on the Project caused damage to the Project and forced Milhaus to remove and replace non-defective work to repair the alleged the deficiencies in C. Ford’s work. 14. C. Ford breached the terms of its Subcontract by failing to perform its work in a good and workmanlike manner and in accordance with the plans, specifications and applicable building codes. 15. As a result, Milhaus is entitled to recover against C. Ford in excess of $1,152,836.56, plus interest, costs and attorneys’ fees. COUNT II – NEGLIGENCE 16. Milhaus incorporates and realleges all previous paragraphs herein. 17. C. Ford owed a duty to Milhaus to supervise, manage and construct its work on the Project in a good and workmanlike manner. 18. The deficient work performed by C. Ford on the Project caused damage to the Project and forced Milhaus to remove existing work and replace non-defective work to repair the alleged deficiencies in C. Ford’s work. 19. C. Ford breached its duty to Milhaus by failing to construct the Project in a good and workmanlike manner. 20. As a result, Milhaus is entitled to recover against C. Ford in excess of $1,152,836.56, plus interest, costs and attorneys’ fees. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Milhaus Construction, LLC, prays that judgment be entered in its favor and against C. Ford as follows: A. Judgment against C. Ford in excess of $1,152,836.56, plus interest, costs and attorneys’ fees; B. All further relief as the Court may deem just and equitable. Alan W. Bardell, OBA #17415 Cole B. Brown, OBA #34619 HAYES MAGRINI & GATEWOOD 1220 N. Walker Ave. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73103 Telephone: 405-235-9922 Facsimile: 405-235-6611 E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff, Milhaus Construction, LLC
Disclaimer: This content is sourced from publicly available court records. Crazy Civil Court is an entertainment platform and does not provide legal advice. We are not lawyers. All information is presented as-is from public filings.