Facts

In May 2004, the plaintiff, an electronics components broker, sought $680,000 of fire and theft insurance from defendants for computer gaming accessories (games), later raised at plaintiff's request to $1,164,000 for the games and, additionally, Intel CPU computer chips (chips) stored in a public storage facility. The defendants failed to provide the plaintiff with a written, detailed insurance quote for Lloyds of London insurance from an intermediary surplus lines broker which offered $1,164,000 of fire insurance and a $25,000 "theft sublimit", a limit on theft coverage. Instead, the defendants e-mailed quotes to the plaintiff mistakenly describing the theft sublimit as a "deductible." On July 28, 2004, the plaintiff paid $12,615 for the insurance and received a written evidence of insurance describing the theft sublimit of $25,000 as a deductible. When the plaintiff's electronics were subsequently stolen and the plaintiff claimed theft insurance, the plaintiff was informed for the first time that he had a $50,000 limit on the theft loss. Lloyds thereafter paid $50,000 to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed the defendants failed to provide the agreed theft insurance and misinformed him on the limit of his theft coverage.

The plaintiff sued the defendants for breach of contract for failure to provide proper insurance coverage and for negligence.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant admitted sending the plaintiff the erroneous e-mail insurance quotes, but claimed the mistake was cured in a telephone call to the plaintiff two weeks before the coverage was bound and during a meeting with the plaintiff on July 28, 2004, the day he purchased the insurance. The defendants, who were successful in negotiating with the surplus lines broker to raise the plaintiff's theft sublimit from $25,000 to $50,000, further claimed the plaintiff was sent two e-mails, on August 2 and 4, in which the defendants confirmed the plaintiff's theft coverage was limited to $50,000. The defendants further claimed they would never have attempted to obtain the plaintiff's insurance since the plaintiff misrepresented his ownership interest in the chips being on "consignment," and failed to inform the defendants he was not on the storage facility lease and had stored commercial property, rather than personal property, in violation of the lease.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff demanded $900,000; the defendant offered $500,000.

Damages

The plaintiff sought $1,089,000 damages for the theft insurance coverage, being the agreed coverage of $1,164,000 minus the $25,000 deductible and the $50,000 previously paid by Lloyds of London. Additionally, plaintiff sought lost profits of $378,125 for the chips and $452,540 for the games.

Result

The jury reached a unanimous plaintiff's verdict on liability and awarded Valerio $1,919,665 in damages.

Deliberation

two hours

Poll

12-0 (on all questions)

Length

six days