Plut

Plut v. Fireman's Fund Insurance

Good Law
102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 36·2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 911·2000 D.A.R. 12·2000 Daily Journal DAR 12755·85 Cal. App. 4th 98
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 30, 2000B128620California4,961 words

Opinion

Opinion

Curry, J.

Appellants John and Karen Plut challenge the trial court’s adjustments to an award of damages after a jury found respondent Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company (Fireman’s Fund) liable for breach of insurance contract and bad faith. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Relevant Factual and Procedural Background

The Pluts bought a house in Rancho Palos Verdes in 1975. In 1989, Fireman’s Fund issued the Pluts a homeowners policy, effective from June 1989 to July 1990. The policy limits were $522,000 for the dwelling and $261,000 for personal property.

In February 1990, the Pluts hired Roto-Rooter Service & Plumbing Company (Roto-Rooter) to service their drains. In the course of Roto-Rooter’s work, it removed a toilet in a first floor bathroom. On March 1, 1990, the Pluts awoke and discovered that the first floor was flooded. They notified Roto-Rooter, which accepted responsibility for the damages. They then reported the loss to Fireman’s Fund, indicating that Roto-Rooter had promised to “take care of everything.”

The Pluts hired Interior Services, Inc. (ISI) to store and restore their personal belongings, including numerous antiques. In June 1990, the Pluts learned that…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.