 |
Pacific States
Stutman increases client’s pro rata settlement share
The Stutman team recently recovered $750,000 in a subrogation litigation arising out of a condominium building fire in Washington State. The fire occurred during construction in a bathroom in one of the condominium units. The defendant denied liability for the claim, and Stutman pursued the matter in litigation.After serving requests for admissions early in the process, the defendant could no longer dispute liability. The focus then turned to damages, as several other entities also had pending claims and the defendant had limited amounts of insurance available to cover them.
Initially, because of the limited funds, the defendant made an initial settlement offer of 35% of Stutman’s client’s damages and wanted to retain a portion of the available insurance funds for use in the event additional claims arose. Stutman attorneys analyzed the other claimants’ damages and found them to be artificially inflated. It became apparent that the defendant overvalued the damages claimed by the other plaintiffs by simply accepting their claimed damages without any evidentiary support. In fact, the defendant was going to pay claims without obtaining any documentation. This would have effectively reduced Stutman’s clients’ pro rata share of the settlement proceeds. By critiquing the other claimants’ damages, the Stutman team increased its client’s share of the settlement by approximately $200,000.
Landmark Restaurant fire: Lack of evidence does not prevent recovery.
A kitchen grease fire occurred at a landmark restaurant in Los Angeles. The building owner’s insurer examined the scene and, failing to preserve any evidence having suspected an electrical failure, quickly abandoned subrogation attempts. Stutman attorneys representing the tenant’s insurer pursued a case against the duct cleaning company for allowing excessive grease buildup and against the fire suppression system installer for improper design of the system. Despite the building owner’s failure to retain the evidence and deposition testimony inconsistent with Stutman’s theory of liability, the Stutman firm was able to secure a significant confidential six-figure settlement prior to trial.City pays damages and upgrades for Rodeo Drive sinkhole.
The City of Los Angeles recently reached a settlement with the Stutman firm for more than $600,000 to cover damages to a commercial property on Rodeo Drive caused by a sinkhole. The problem began when leakage from a sewer main, owned and operated by the City, caused a large sinkhole directly beneath a commercial property located on the famous Rodeo Drive. Portions of the property, and its contents, fell directly into the sinkhole.Aggressive investigation showed that the City not only had prior knowledge of the leak, but had planned to do the repairs six months prior to the loss but never got the project started. Stutman attorneys scheduled settlement negotiations and, after a lengthy mediation process in which the Stutman firm insisted that the city pay more than $100,000 for required building code upgrades and repairs, a settlement was reached for more than 90% of the total insurance claim.
Novel theory nets maximum recovery in a case refused by others.
The Stutman firm recovered $300,000 for an insurer of a Spokane, Washington, apartment complex destroyed by a fire. The fire started in the new building manager’s apartment the day she moved in. When she noticed that the refrigerator wasn’t working she turned on the circuit breaker. The breaker also controlled the electric range and one of the burners was in the “on” position and ignited a box that was placed on top of the stove during the move in process. From there, the fire spread to the rest of the building.Was the apartment buildings manager to blame or one of the workmen hired to renovate the apartment before her move in date been negligent? Although other firms turned down the case, the Stutman team filed suit and took the case successfully to mediation.
Careful depositions of the flooring installer by Stutman’s attorneys showed that the installer had shut off the breaker in order to move the stove to lay a new floor. Before moving the stove, the installer turned on one of the burners to test whether the electricity was off, leaving it in the “on” position. The failure to turn off the burner caused the fire and led to a $300,000 award, the limit of the installer’s policy coverage.
