Facts

On May 2, 2004, the home of the plaintiffs, Richard and Karen Lyons, in Victorville, was damaged by heat that came from a neighbor's residence, which was fully engulfed in flames.

The plaintiffs' insurance carrier, defendant Wawanesa General Insurance Company, paid nearly $13,000 for exterior repair, $4,000 for interior cleaning, $4,000 to replace a burned-down fence, $1,000 to replace items in the plaintiffs' home that were damaged and $9,000 to replace destroyed landscaping. Wawanesa's payment included money for four damaged windows and stucco repair on the side of the home closest to the fire.

The plaintiffs claimed that the new windows and stucco repair did not match those on the other three sides of the house and that Wawanesa had an obligation to pay to replace the window and stucco for the whole house. They claimed that the "line of sight" rule supported their position.

Wawanesa claimed that the "line of sight rule" was no longer in effect under California Insurance Law and that their obligation was to replace items "with uniformity in the damaged area: only, under California Code of Regulations, Title 10, Rule 2695.9." Wawanesa claimed that the payment given was sufficient to accomplish this. The plaintiffs sued Wawanesa for bad faith and breach of contract.

Prior to trial, defendant brought a motion for summary judgment and the court dismissed the plaintiffs' bad faith claim based upon the "Genuine Dispute Doctrine," and the case was tried on the breach of contract claim alone.

The plaintiffs sought compensation for landscape damage, discoloration of exterior stucco, cracked windows, interior smoke damage, and a partially burned roof. They asked the jury for $49,309 to repair the alleged damage to their home.

Wawanesa claimed that their payment was sufficient to repair the damage in the affected area, which is the extent of their obligation according to the terms of the insurance policy and California statutory law.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff's highest demand was $170,000 at settlement conference. The plaintiff demanded $79,000 pursuant to C.C.P. Section 998. The defendant made a C.C.P. Section 998 offer of $5,002.

Result

The jury awarded the plaintiffs $15,989. This represented the additional amount the jury believed was owed for stucco repair, roof repair, window replacement, fencing and landscaping. After the trial, the jurors told the lawyers that they had not awarded any amount for the undamaged areas of the structure.

Other Information

The plaintiffs' attorney has expressed a desire to appeal the jury verdict. FILING DATE: May 13, 2005.

Deliberation

six hours

Length

10 days