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.

Insurance
Bad Faith

Ron Miletich and Teresa Miletich v. Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Company

Published: Nov. 4, 2006 | Result Date: Feb. 2, 2006 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: GIC827701 Verdict –  Defense

Court

San Diego Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Gary Durand

Suzanne E. Rand-Lewis
(Gary Rand & Suzanne E. Rand-Lewis PLC)


Defendant

Elaine M. Adam

Scott G. Johnson

Margaret M. Drugan


Facts

Plaintiffs Ron and Teresa Miletich owned a home in San Diego, which was covered under an insurance policy issued by defendant Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Co. According to plaintiffs, in November 2002, their home sustained wind damage from a storm. As a result, water leaked into a number of the rooms. After an inspection was performed in December, defendant informed plaintiffs that only a small portion of the damage would be covered.

Plaintiffs unsuccessfully tried to obtain repairs according to the amount determined by defendant's claim technical specialist, Mickey Green. In January 2003, plaintiffs sought an inspection by Paramount Disaster Recovery Inc. Paramount calculated a $28,417 estimate. After Green received the estimate, he performed another inspection with Paramount. Although he agreed to modify the amount he originally determined, he would not take in to account the roof damage. In a denial letter issued to plaintiffs, defendant asserted that the roof damage was caused by wear and tear, rather than the covered wind damage.

In November, another inspection by defendant revealed some wind damage. However, the report provided by defendant's general contractor indicated that there was no wind damage. Based on their contractor's report, defendant issued plaintiffs a check for $350, without explanation.

Contentions

CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that the report submitted by defendant's contractor lacked a factual basis. Further, he was not a licensed roofing contractor, and his inspection caused additional damage to the roof. Moreover, defendant had a history of wrongfully denying insurance claims, such as plaintiffs'. This tactic resulted in delayed payments and small final settlements.

Injuries

Plaintiffs claimed emotional distress, property damage and insurance benefits.

Result

Judgment was rendered for defendant. Plaintiff has filed an appeal, which is pending.

Other Information

According to plaintiff, appeal regarding co-defendant was already granted, reversed and remanded.


#98195

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

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