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.

Consumer Law
Consumer Protection

State of California v. Guarantee Appraisal

Published: Nov. 19, 2021 | Result Date: Aug. 24, 2021 | Filing Date: Jul. 23, 2021 |

Case number: 56-2021-00556474-CU-MC-VTA Settlement –  $415,000

Judge

Mark S. Borrell

Court

Ventura County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Karen L. Wold
(Office of the Ventura County District Attorney)

Kathryn L. Turner
(Office of the San Diego County District Attorney)

Steven S. Wang
(Office of the Los Angeles County District Attorney)


Defendant

Eileen R. Ridley
(Foley & Lardner LLP)


Facts

Guarantee Appraisal Corporation (GAC) is a provider of natural hazard disclosure statements. A natural hazard disclosure statement informs a potential buyer of property of all known natural hazard risks. California requires the disclosure statement to be provided to a potential buyer of residential property by the seller of that property. GAC marketed and sold two different brands of natural hazard disclosure statements: Certified NHD and HomeServices NHD. The HomeServices brand was marketed in Southern California to affiliated businesses as the low-cost option, while the Certified brand was exclusively marketed in the Central Valley. Ventura County's Consumer and Environmental Protection Unit, and the Los Angeles and San Diego County District Attorney's Offices filed suit against GAC and launched an investigation into GAC's business marketing practices.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that defendant's disclosure reports under two different brands had different prices with essentially the same information. Plaintiffs further contended that defendant failed to disclose that the cheaper report was also available for purchase in many higher priced real estate locations. Plaintiff also contended that the Certified brand was a viable lower cost option by $16 for the identical product.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all contentions.

Result

The case settled. Defendant is required to pay $415,000 in civil penalties, costs and restitution. Defendant is required to institute changes in its business marketing practices in the future to ensure a similar incident does not occur.

Other Information

GAC cooperated in the resolution of this case.


#138046

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

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