Facts

Plaintiff maintained a homeowners insurance policy on her home in San Diego with Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Company. Plaintiff reported three claims to Prudential for three plumbing leaks in her home. Plaintiff claimed that these plumbing leaks caused mold damage in her home.

Prudential paid for an industrial hygienist to test the home for mold. According to plaintiff's counsel, Prudential subsequently determined the home to be cleared of mold. Plaintiff continued to complain about a mold problem, and Prudential paid for a second industrial hygienist to test the home. Prudential then agreed to pay for a mold remediation company to clean up the mold damage in isolated areas of the home, and paid a contractor to perform a repair estimate for the home.

According to defense counsel, a successful clearance test was performed for the areas of plaintiff's home for which the mold remediation was performed. Plaintiff or the companies who performed the mold testing, remediation and clearance reported no issues of mold damage in the basement area of plaintiff's home to Prudential. Subsequently plaintiff contended that there was mold damage in the basement area of her home.

Prudential declined to pay any benefits pertaining to plaintiff's claim of mold damage in the basement of her home. According to plaintiff's counsel, Prudential subsequently cancelled plaintiff's homeowner's insurance policy of 30 years as well.

Plaintiff brought suit against Prudential for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiff also brought suit against the second industrial hygiene company (Szaras) and the mold remediation company for negligence.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that Prudential was obligated to and failed to pay benefits for mold damage in the basement of her home. Plaintiff contended that the mold damage in her basement resulted from a covered plumbing leak above the basement ceiling which she had previously reported. Plaintiff contended that Prudential ignored the leak into the basement, and instructed the industrial hygiene, remediation and repair companies to focus only on isolated areas of the home. Plaintiff contended that the industrial hygiene and mold remediation companies were negligent in performing their work, specifically in limited the scope of their work.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Prudential contended that it paid all the benefits owed to plaintiff under her homeowners insurance policy for her plumbing claims. Prudential further contended that to the extent mold damage existed in the basement of plaintiff's home, the mold damage was caused by water seepage from outside of plaintiff's home which was not covered under plaintiff's insurance policy.

Settlement Discussions

Prudential previously served plaintiff with a C.C.P. section 998 offer to compromise for the sum of $25,000. Plaintiff settled with the mold remediation company prior to start of trial. Plaintiff settled with the industrial hygiene company prior to jury selection and opening arguments.

Damages

Plaintiff sought $150,000 to repair her home and additional damages for a claimed "stigma" to the value of her home.

Result

The judgment was for defendant Prudential. The Szaras Companies, an industrial hygiene company, represented by Mr. Byron, was dismissed because the court ruled that plaintiff's industrial hygienist expert could not testify about The Szaras Companies' standard of care. Thus with no expert testimony, plaintiff's case against The Szaras Companies for professional negligence could not proceed. The case against Szaras settled for a waiver of The Szaras Companies' litigation costs after the court ordered the case dismissed. Plaintiff, in pro per, attempted an appeal but the Fourth District Court of Appeal pursuant to a motion filed by Prudential recently dismissed it.

Deliberation

1 day

Poll

11-1 (defense verdict)

Length

8 days