Rajwinder Kaur v. Fire Insurance Exchange
Published: Apr. 12, 2008 | Result Date: Jan. 25, 2008 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 382612 Verdict – Defense
Court
Stanislaus Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
William L. Cowin
(Law Office of William L. Cowin Inc. APC)
James H. Wilkins
(Wilkins Drolshagen & Czeshinski LLP)
Defendant
William T. McLaughlin II
(McLaughlin Dixon, LLP)
Experts
Plaintiff
C. Michael Carter
(technical)
Charles Edwards
(medical)
Philip Hoile
(medical)
Talwinder Hudal
(medical)
Charles Claborn
(technical)
Lance Coren
(technical)
Defendant
Dave Briggs
(technical)
Linda Lynch
(technical)
Facts
On July 27, 2005, there were two arson fires hours apart at Rajwinder Kaur's, plaintiff's, home in Ceres. Kaur submitted claims for property and content losses to Fire Insurance Exchange (FIE), but once FIE discovered that the fire was set intentionally, the matter was sent to coverage counsel. On June 21, 2006, FIE denied plaintiff's claim based on her alleged failure to cooperate with the investigation.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that her alleged failure to cooperate was excusable based on her language and cultural differences, and the mental breakdown she suffered after the fire. Defendants never demanded an EUO of the plaintiff and they never sent a letter stating that plaintiff's claim would be denied if she did not cooperate as defendant allegedly requested.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant argued that Kaur unreasonably failed to cooperate with FIE's investigation, failed to be examined under oath, provided false information on her claim forms, and was involved in causing the fires. Further, defendant alleged that plaintiff should not be compensated for the replacement of all her personal property, because some of it could be salvaged.
Damages
The plaintiff sought damages in the amount of the unpaid benefits, totaling $475,320, for such losses as replacement of her home, replacement of its contents, and for debris removal. Plaintiff also sought an unspecified amount in damages for emotional distress and punitive damages.
Result
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. The jury found that because Kaur failed to cooperate with FIE, her failure had prejudiced FIE's investigation. Decision on this issue by the jury precluded the jury from considering other defenses. According to plaintiff's counsel, after the jury was excused and during discussions with the jury, it was clear that the jury wanted to find for Kaur but they did not understand the jury instruction regarding "prejudicial." The defendant offered no proof, no evidence they were prejudiced in their investigation based on Mrs. Kaur's medical condition.
Deliberation
one day
Poll
11-1 (failure to cooperate); 10-2 (prejudicial)
Length
26 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390