Russo & Gould Partner Charles (“Chuck”) B. Stokes, Esquire has successfully defended a claim for more than $600,000 in compensatory damages brought by the owners of an upscale Burlington County, New Jersey residence. In Walsh v. AmGuard, Plaintiffs filed suit in state court claiming that their homeowner’s carrier had failed to compensate them adequately for damages they allegedly sustained as a result of a 2019 storm. They claimed that high winds tore shingles from their roof, allowing rain to infiltrate much of the building and either damage or destroy walls, floors, doors, windows and other elements of the residence, as well as extensive personal property. They claimed that much of the damage was caused by mold, which they claimed developed during an alleged delay in investigating and adjusting the loss.

After removing the case to federal court, Chuck successfully moved to have the Plaintiffs’ claim for bad faith severed and stayed, pending the outcome of the claim for breach of contract.

Chuck then developed information through discovery and investigation to show that the Plaintiffs had made a similar claim 13 months earlier against their then-insurer. In that 2018 claim, an upper-level bathroom faucet had been left running for more than 8 hours, overflowing the basin and causing water to run along the walls through the main level and into the basement.  The house was still partially demolished and uninhabitable at the time of the 2019 loss.

At arbitration, Chuck argued on behalf our client that many of the items included in the 2019 claim were actually documented during the 2018 claim, for which the Plaintiffs were compensated by their former insurer. Additionally, Chuck argued that the Plaintiffs had failed to introduce any evidence to support their claim that mold developed in the house and in their personal property after the 2019 loss, rather than after the 2018 loss. Finally, the defense introduced expert testimony disputing Plaintiffs’ claims as to causation and damages. After a hearing and submission of expert reports and argument, the Arbitrator found that the Plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden of proof as to both liability and damages, and decided the case in favor of Russo & Gould’s client.