Judy Pitre, Nolen Pitre (in pro per) v. Allstate Insurance Co.
Published: Jan. 28, 2003 | Result Date: Nov. 27, 2002 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: CV986088MMM Verdict – $0
Facts
The plaintiffs' Allstate homeowners' insurance policy covered their house in Hesperia. On Jan. 15, 1997, the house and its contents were destroyed by fire. The parties agreed that the fire was intentionally set. The plaintiffs told Allstate that, at the time of fire, they were returning home from a vacation in Louisiana. They produced a receipt for a cash purchase of gas in Texas on the day of the fire to support their position that they could not have set the fire. The plaintiffs told Allstate that nine people lived in the house, including two elderly male relatives unable to take care of themselves. After the fire, the family stayed with relatives in three separate locations and submitted bills to Allstate for charges the relatives allegedly required them to pay. The plaintiffs also submitted a claim to Allstate for $106,381 for the value of the damaged contents. After the plaintiffs eventually appeared for examinations under oath, Allstate denied the claim on the grounds that the plaintiffs had made intentional, material misrepresentations and had failed to cooperate.
Damages
The plaintiffs sought $180,229 for damage to the house and contents, plus unpaid additional living expenses and interest.
Other Information
Before trial, Judge Margaret M. Morrow granted Allstate's motion to eliminate the claims for bad faith and punitive damages. After trial, Judge Morrow issued a 39-page decision concluding that the plaintiffs had ignited the fire, had lied to Allstate and had failed to cooperate. The opinion stated that the plaintiffs had been selective in the documents that they had produced. They had many documents that they believed were helpful to their claim, such as a receipt for a smoke alarm they purchased shortly before the fire, but had no documents concerning disputed contents. The court further stated that the plaintiffs purchased the smoke alarm shortly before the fire in order to make it appear that they were concerned about fire safety at the house. The plaintiff wife in a letter to the Daily Journal denied that the lender on their California property was about to foreclose and, additionally, made a number of other points, including (a) the witnesses to the fire were unreliable; (b) the defendant's investigation was conducted poorly; (c) notwithstanding the plaintiff husband being unemployed, he still had an income and had received a lump sum payment of $25,000; and (d) that at the time of closing statements, the plaintiff wife was mentally and emotionally distraught and was unable to satisfactorily demonstrate to the court the extent of the unreliable and false testimony provided in the case.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390