Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this insurance bad faith lawsuit and its proceedings.)
XYZ’S ARGUMENT FOR A STATEMENT OF DAMAGES IS WITHOUT MERIT IN THAT THEY ARE ALREADY AWARE OF THE DAMAGES SOUGHT BY PLAINTIFF
Plaintiffs Pleaded Damages to be Shown by Proof at Time of Trial
Plaintiffs filed their original complaint on May 9, 2008. At the time, plaintiffs were under the belief they were entitled to certain damages and to continue plead such in the First Amended Complaint, until proof may be obtained. At the time that the statement of damages were requested, plaintiffs produced a certain figure of for their damages. Plaintiffs had not calculated any other damages and asked clarification as to XYZ’s interpretation of the Code and what in particular did they additionally want from plaintiffs. XYZ now states plaintiffs are also seeking attorney fees and emotional distress damages.
Plaintiffs’ letters as indicated above included the attorney fees that the Halls have paid. As to the emotional distress damages, this has not been determined at this time and this is the first time that XYZ has clarified this issue.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Additionally, XYZ’s letter of January 12, 2009, stating plaintiffs never provided Hal Lee’s estimate was befuddling because it had. As to other damages alleged, plaintiffs can not determine the loss value, rental value, sale value without experts. The other potential damages all to be determined by facts and proof to the court when applicable. XYZ had a reasonable knowledge of plaintiffs damages at the time of the request for which they could calculate their defense. Even so, providing a statement of damages does not limit the amount of recovery shown by proof at trial, Damele v. Mack Trucks, (1990) 219 Cal.App. 3d 29, 267 Cal.Rptr. 197. (See Part 6 of 6.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.