Sacramento Husband And Wife Battle Insurance Company After Arson Loss, Part 3 of 6

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.)

Special Interrogatories

XYZ served 54 special interrogatories without declaration for plaintiffs to respond. Plaintiffs answered 35 and informed XYZ they should provide a declaration for response to the additional special interrogatories. XYZ provided the declaration and the plaintiffs answered to the best of their ability.

XYZ contends that Mr. Hall’s responses to the first 35 special interrogatories and form interrogatories were incomplete and requested further responses without objections. Plaintiffs provided supplemental responses and letter addressing the request. Plaintiffs asked clarification as to what XYZ was seeking. XYZ responded with their letter of January 12, 2009.

Statement of Damages

XYZ sent a statement of damages on November 3, 2008, after plaintiffs had mailed a letter in October 2008 indicating they were willing to settle the case for the cost to repair per the estimate of Clive Lee, water and fire restoration expert, that was submitted to the federal court.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The plaintiffs hired Mr. Lee to determine to the value of the loss because XYZ, though they hired a fire investigator, did not prepare an estimate to repair the property. XYZ had a copy of Lee’s declaration and cost estimate submitted with plaintiffs’s Motion to Remand to state court.

The Halls faxed another letter to XYZ regarding the damages they were willing to settle for in November 2008. Finally in December 2008, plaintiffs reiterated the damages sought during a meet and confer telephone call with XYZ. Plaintiffs stated they would serve a C.C.P. 998 Offer, which they did. XYZ never responded to the letters or offer. They were in motion for the demurrer and apparently a motion to compel. (See Part 4 of 6.)

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Contact Information