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
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
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390