Consumer Law Case Results

Contract

Steven Blair and Timothy Ricker represented a homeowner who incurred significant damage to the roof and interior of his home following an ice storm. The homeowner’s insurance company paid approximately $30,000 to replace the roof, but refused to provide coverage for the damage caused to the interior of his home (including mold damage), the damage to his personal property, or for loss of use of his home during the repair process. After the case was filed, but before discovery was complete, the insurance company agreed to settle the case with the homeowner for payment of an additional $100,000.

Steven Blair represented a property owner who incurred significant damage to the interior of an unoccupied income property when a water pipe froze and burst, causing approximately $63,000 in damage to the home’s walls and hardwood floors. The insurer denied the property owner’s claim, citing a “vacancy” exclusion contained in the policy as the basis for its denial. In this case, the evidence was clear that the property owner had not abandoned the property. Following a letter from this office demanding coverage on behalf of the property owner, the insurer agreed to pay the property owner’s claim in full.

Steven Blair and Tim Ricker represented the owner of an income property who agreed to provide exclusive possession of the property to a third-party business that promised, for a fee, to assist the homeowner in marketing and selling the home. After gaining possession of the property, however, the business sublet the property to a felon who damaged the home and stole items of personal property left there for marketing purposes. Suit was filed to recover actual and punitive damages. Following discovery, the case was settled for a confidential sum, which totaled approximately 14 times the actual damages alleged in the case.

Steven Blair and David Ansley represented an elderly patient who was treated by an ophthalmologist for glaucoma. Despite the fact that the patient’s glaucoma was effectively treated with topical glaucoma medication, the ophthalmologist recommended to the patient that she undergo elective glaucoma surgery, which resulted in blindness in one eye. After a suit was filed, it was discovered the ophthalmologist had represented to Medicare that the surgery was not elective, but was “necessary” to control her glaucoma in order to insure his payment. The lawsuit was settled for a confidential amount.

**Past results afford no guarantee of future results. Every case is different and must be judged on its own merits.