Confidential
Settlement – $675,000Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Van Nuys
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Elise D. Klein
(Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith LLP)
Defendant
Daniel J. Buckley
(Signature Resolution)
Eugene J. Egan
(Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP)
Experts
Plaintiff
Gary Chang
(technical)
Michael P. Rubin
(Michael P. Rubin & Associates Inc.)
(technical)
Howard C. Rile Jr.
(technical)
Robert Kotz
(technical)
Robert Zuckerman
(technical)
Darryl H. Graver
(technical)
Robin Shepard
(technical)
Michael Kaufman
(technical)
Defendant
Douglas R. Herr
(technical)
Marc C. Viau
(technical)
Edward D. Martinet II
(technical)
Elliott C. Rothman
(technical)
Facts
The defendants in this case acted as insurance brokers for plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' homeowners insurer, canceled the insurance on plaintiff's residence several days before January 1994, Northridge earthquake. The plaintiffs claimed that brokers failed to procure replacement insurance in time to provide coverage for the earthquake. The insurer advanced money to plaintiffs for their earthquake loss under a Loan Receipt and Assignment of their rights against the brokers. The loan receipt required payment only if plaintiffs prevailed in a suit against the broker. The plaintiffs then brought this action against the defendant based on professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, negligent and intentional misrepresentation, negligent infiction of emotional distress and intentional infliction of emotional distress theories of recovery.
Settlement Discussions
According to defendants, plaintiffs demanded $2 million. The defendants made a C.C.P. º998 offer of compromise for $410,000.
Damages
The plaintiff claimed in excess of $1.5 million.
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately three years and one month after the case was filed. A mandatory settlement conference held on May 13, 1998, did not resolve the matter. This case went to trial and the jury returned a verdict of approximately $550,000 for the earthquake damage to plaintiffs' property. The parties then contested further questions of coverage. Plaintiffs contended that they were entitled to additional insurance amounts for fair rental value and additional living expense; plus attorneys' fees expended in pursuing the insurance carrier, and prejudgment interest. Defendants contested those arguments and argued that the verdict should be further reduced by amounts identified as expended for building code upgrades, landscaping damage, betterments, and repairs to pre-existing conditions and exterior masonry veneer. Before the court ruled on these coverage issues, the parties settled for $675,000.
Deliberation
three days
Poll
9-3 (malpractice)
Length
27 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390