Facts

This case arose from a first-party loss from a hot-water-pipe leak under the slab. The Ginder plaintiffs claimed that CSE Safeguard Insurance Company failed to properly investigate damages from water under tile flooring, hired an incompetent independent adjuster to do the initial evaluation, paid a ridiculously low number for the initial payment and closed its file. The plaintiffs pursued additional benefits (the husband is a lawyer and the wife is a realtor), so CSE re-opened the claim, sent out a tile expert and a general contractor for further investigation, and the GC came up with an estimate about four times more than the independent adjuster. The CSE supervisor approved a supplemental payment based on the general contractor's evaluation; the adjuster did not pay the supplemental payment for over two months. The adjuster did not delay payment intentionally, but the delay in payment was without explanation other than it was a mistake. The delay triggered filing of this lawsuit, and the adjuster did not make the supplemental payment until he learned that CSE had been served with the lawsuit.

The lawsuit claimed breach of the insurance policy contract and bad faith. Plaintiffs sought contract damages, bad faith damages, and punitive damages.

As the lawsuit progressed, it was found that the home's concrete slab had excessive moisture. The plaintiffs claimed that the slab's ongoing moisture problems are why over two years later their house still has not been fixed. The defense was that the damage from the pipe leak was dried out, and repair was properly estimated and paid in 2020. Defendant put on extensive expert evidence about why the slab still has a high moisture content (a deteriorated moisture barrier under the foundation), and that the moisture preexisted the pipe leak. The plaintiffs claimed that all the problems were from the pipe leak, that their house has to be fully mold remediated, and that the home's slab has to be jack hammered out, a new vapor barrier installed, and much of the house re-built. The defense claimed that the benefits the Ginders were entitled to were paid (nearly) in full, except for a content manipulation expense during repairs that was overlooked, and that the delay in payment did not cause any harm.

After plaintiffs rested their case in chief, Judge Dahlquist in Department N29 granted nonsuit on the punitive damages claim.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: The Ginder plaintiffs claimed that CSE Safeguard Insurance failed to properly investigate the water loss, failed to deal with water under tile flooring, and did not accept that the high moisture problems in the concrete slab were from the pipe leak. The carrier did not pay out appropriate benefits, and did not allow the plaintiffs to appropriately repair their home, so that the home is still torn up two years later, causing them mental suffering, inconvenience, and emotional distress.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: CSE Safeguard Insurance Company claimed that it properly investigated the claim with qualified adjusters and experts, and paid covered damages; it conceded that the supplemental payment based on the general contractor's estimate was two months later than it should have been. CSE claimed that the ongoing high moisture levels in the slab have nothing to do with the pipe leak two years prior, and that ongoing moisture sources to the slab exist.

Settlement Discussions

Plaintiffs demanded $2.5 million before trial. Defendant offered $200,000 before trial. Plaintiff demanded $6.5 million during deliberations.

Damages

The Ginders sought breach of contract damages of $899,657; they were awarded $51,172.26. Mold remediation of $41,404; they were awarded $0.00. They sought past loss of use of $391,404.29; they were awarded $138,500. Plaintiffs sought future loss of use of $450,000; they were awarded $70,000. Plaintiffs sought noneconomic damages for mental suffering, inconvenience, and emotional distress of over $3.4 Million each; the jury awarded $250,000 each.

Result

Verdict for plaintiff: Contract damages: $51,172.26 Damage to real property (mold): $0.00 Past loss of use: $138,500 Future loss of use: $70,000 Noneconomic: Eric Ginder-$250,000, Cathy Ginder-$250,000

Other Information

The Ginder plaintiffs requested a complete re-build of their home, which the jury rejected.

Deliberation

1 day

Poll

11 to 1

Length

12 days