Thomas Curry, Carol Curry v. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club of Southern California
Published: Jun. 3, 2006 | Result Date: Apr. 27, 2006 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: PC034555 Verdict – Defense
Court
L.A. Superior Chatsworth
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Richard S. Gower
(Macdonald and Cody)
Experts
Plaintiff
G. William Beyer
(technical)
Defendant
Boyd A. Veenstra
(technical)
Facts
The plaintiffs resided in Unit 7. A pipe burst in Unit 8 flooding both units. The defendant had a remediation team clean up Unit 7. Unit 8 did not have any clean up done. The plaintiffs wanted to be relocated due to a smell from Unit 8 and possible exposure to mold.
Contentions
PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiffs contended that the defendants should have relocated them. They were exposed to mold and got sick. They spent $20,000 to medical care and claimed $100,000 in damages to their clothes and furniture. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants low-balled estimates and delayed their investigation.
DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
The defendants contended that they properly dried plaintiff's Unit and that it was not uninhabitable, and that all benefits were paid.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiffs made a C.C.P. Section 998 demand of $500,000. The defendants made a C.C.P. Section 998 offer of $50,000 for each plaintiff.
Injuries
The plaintiffs claimed that ALE was owed and that they suffered severe emotional distress from having to stay in their home and due to the lowball offer to repair and due to the delay in the investigation.
Result
Defense verdict.
Other Information
The issue of mold was eliminated from the case during motions in limine.
Deliberation
six hours
Poll
11-1
Length
eight days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390