This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Insurance
Breach of Contract
Fire Insurance

Reddy v. Allstate Insurance Company

Published: May 3, 2008 | Result Date: Mar. 26, 2008 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: SC045209 Verdict –  Defense

Court

Ventura Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Thomas M. Madruga
(Olivarez Madruga Lemieux O'Neill LLP)


Defendant

Gregory Michael MacGregor

Sangeeta A. Madhok


Experts

Plaintiff

Dennis Brooks
(technical)

Vahe Kardjian
(technical)

Vic Johnson
(technical)

Defendant

Felix Martin
(technical)

Facts

Plaintiffs' rental house in Bell Canyon sustained an arson fire loss. Allstate Insurance Company's homeowner's insurer paid actual cash value of $315,991 for repair of the residence, holding back approximately $57,000 payable upon completion of repairs. The plaintiffs claimed the house was unrepairable and demolished it, demanding additional structure benefits of $157,000 for reconstruction. After contents inventory was prepared by Allstate adjuster, the plaintiffs added $245,000 worth of exotic artwork, statuary and hand-loomed Indian carpets for which the adjuster found no corresponding after-fire debris. The Request for Examinations Under Oath were refused by plaintiffs and their attorney and the claim was denied.

Allstate's motion for nonsuit was granted in part, the court ruling that the refusal to appear for the examinations under oath was a failed condition precedent to the contents claim.

The jury then found that the plaintiffs made material misrepresentations of fact in connection with their claim, which precluded recovery on any portion of the claim.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiffs contended the house could not be repaired, but had to be rebuilt at a cost of $870,000. The damaged contents belonged to plaintiffs and exceeded $236,000 in value.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant contended that the house could be repaired for $395,000, but only $315,991 (plus code upgrades and debris removal) was payable unless and until repairs were completed. No repair was ever done. The plaintiffs materially misrepresented the existence and value of $245,000 worth of personal property, invalidating the claim in toto.

Damages

The damages claimed were extended policy limits for damage to the structure $157,000 (over and above the amounts paid by the carrier) and policy limits of $236,000 for damage to contents.

Result

Special verdict for defendant, following partial nonsuit against the plaintiffs.

Other Information

Jurors found (and defended in after-trial interviews) that plaintiffs had fabricated their claim for artwork, statuary and Cashmere carpets, precluding their action in its entirety under the terms of the policy. Turning point in the case was that the plaintiffs had told at least three different versions of what contents they had at the time of the fire (recorded statement, pretrial depositions, trial testimony). Mediation and settlement negotiations failed. FILING DATE: Jan. 9, 2006.

Deliberation

three hours

Poll

10-2 (defense)

Length

seven days


#120605

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390