Preview
of
25
28
RECEIVED Fo.
VENTURA SUPER OM NNING
FEB 21 2023
Susan M. Benson, Esq. (SBN: 146837) (SPACE BELOW FOR FILING STAMP ONLY)
Joseph M. Pleasant, Esq. (SBN:179571)
BENSON LEGAL, APC
8550 Balboa Boulevard, Suite 290
Northridge, California 91325
Telephone (818) 708-1250
Facsimile (818) 708-1444
File No. B3474
SERVICE EMAIL: E-Service@Bensonlegal.net
Attorneys for: AMERICAN MODERN PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF VENTURA
AMERICAN MODERN PROPERTY AND
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE,
BREACH OF CONTRACT AND
)
)
)
)
}
) EQUITABLE INDEMNITY SEEKING
)
)
)
)
)
)
SAMUEL CABLE, CORAL CABLE and $53,459.00
DOES 1 to 10, inclusive,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF ALLEGES AGAINST DEFENDANTS AS FOLLOWS:
PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS
1. Atall times mentioned herein and material hereto, Plaintiff was and is a lawfully
organized corporation doing business in the State of California.
2. Atall relevant times, Defendants SAMUEL CABLE and CORAL CABLE were and are
individuals.
3. Defendants DOES | to 10 are persons or entities whose identities, capacities and/or
culpability have not yet been discovered but who are in some manner liable for the damages sought
1
COMPLAINTYn VW B® wWNH
wo ©
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
in this lawsuit. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to show their names and capacities when same
have been ascertained.
THE INCIDENT
4. Atall relevant times Defendant SAMUEL CABLE, CORAL CABLE, DOE | and DOE
2 (“defendants” or “tenants”) were residential tenants at 350 PASEO DE PLAYA VENTURA CA
93001-2764 (‘insured property”) and had a lease with or for the benefit of Kay Giles (“the
insured”). The lease provided, either expressly and/or implicitly, that the defendants were
responsible for damage to the property they caused other than ordinary wear and tear, that the
tenants would not damage the premises through negligence and that the tenants would return the
property to the insured in good condition, save ordinary wear and tear, upon termination of the lease
term.
5. During this tenancy, the insured had acquired and maintained a policy of insurance with
plaintiff insuring the property against various perils, including water damage.
6. On or about February 21, 2020, defendants, tenants, while occupying the insured
property, negligently managed a small toilet line leak. Specifically, earlier in the week, they noticed
a small leak where the water line connected to the back of a toilet in the unit. Upon noticing the
leak, the tenants turned the water off to that toilet at the wall and used the second toilet in the
property for the next couple days. The tenants did not contact the property management group to
advise them of the leak. The tenant was planning on attempting the repair but had only tightened
the fitting at the connection point of the toilet, did nothing else, and then turned the water back on
which caused the line to fail and a massive release of water into the unit. The tenants then rotated
the handle twice which caused the valve to fail and water continued to flood the unit and the
building.
2
COMPLAINTYn UV B® WN PB
Oo oO
7. Asaresult of the flooding incident, the insured ultimately made a claim for the damages
under to the building which included a claim to defend and indemnify against the claims of
neighboring unit owners whose property was damaged by the flooding. The claims were covered
and plaintiff paid them to the extent it was required to pay them under the policy. Plaintiff, as a
subrogee, now has standing to recover the amount it was required to pay out, and did in fact pay
you, to cover the insured’s claims and is in a superior equitable position to that of the defendants
such that the defendants should ultimately be held responsible for the loss.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENCE
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
8. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs into this cause of action.
9. Atall relevant times, the defendants had a duty to properly manage, maintain and
prudently use the insured property in such a manner as prevent or minimize water damage from
plumbing leaks.
10. Defendants breached this duty by failing to report the small leak to the property manager
and by attempting to fix or manage the leak without proper knowledge or experience in such
matters, and by negligently causing the water connection to the toilet and the valve to fail.
11. This breach foreseeably resulted a massive release of water into the unit and building
which spread to, penetrated and damaged a significant portion of the insured’s property and
neighboring units. Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled its damages as a result of such negligence as
alleged herein.
3
COMPLAINTSECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF CONTRACT
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
12. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs into this cause of action.
13. The lease agreement, expressly and/or impliedly, required that defendants be responsible
for and pay for damages they caused to the insured premises save ordinary wear and tear, and, those
damages caused by their negligence.
14. As set forth above, the defendants negligently caused a plumbing failure and flooding
within the unit.
15. In breach of their contractual obligations to pay for such damages, they have failed and
refused to accept responsibility for such negligence or pay for the damages.
16. Asadirect and proximate result of this breach, defendants have caused the insured to
incur the damages alleged herein. Plaintiff now has standing as a subrogee and/or assignee to
recover the damages sought in this action.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
IMPLIED EQUITABLE INDEMNITY
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
17. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs into this cause of action.
18. The conduct, circumstances and facts alleged herein, entitle plaintiff to recover the
amounts it paid out as a result of the incident under the doctrine of implied equitable indemnity.
i
i
H
4
COMPLAINTBb WN Fe
aI nw
PRAYER
1. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendants and each of them, on
all causes of action, separately and jointly, as follows:
1. Economic damages in the sum of $53,459.00;
2. Interest on the damages from February 21, 2020;
3. For costs of suit incurred;
4. For such other and further relief that the court considers proper.
Date: February 21, 2023 A, i,
AN I,
usan M. Benson Esq.
Joseph M. Pleasant, Esq.
BENSON LEGAL, APC
Attorneys for Plaintiff
5
COMPLAINT
Preview
of 25 28 RECEIVED Fo. VENTURA SUPER OM NNING FEB 21 2023 Susan M. Benson, Esq. (SBN: 146837) (SPACE BELOW FOR FILING STAMP ONLY) Joseph M. Pleasant, Esq. (SBN:179571) BENSON LEGAL, APC 8550 Balboa Boulevard, Suite 290 Northridge, California 91325 Telephone (818) 708-1250 Facsimile (818) 708-1444 File No. B3474 SERVICE EMAIL: E-Service@Bensonlegal.net Attorneys for: AMERICAN MODERN PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA AMERICAN MODERN PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE, BREACH OF CONTRACT AND ) ) ) ) } ) EQUITABLE INDEMNITY SEEKING ) ) ) ) ) ) SAMUEL CABLE, CORAL CABLE and $53,459.00 DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants. PLAINTIFF ALLEGES AGAINST DEFENDANTS AS FOLLOWS: PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS 1. Atall times mentioned herein and material hereto, Plaintiff was and is a lawfully organized corporation doing business in the State of California. 2. Atall relevant times, Defendants SAMUEL CABLE and CORAL CABLE were and are individuals. 3. Defendants DOES | to 10 are persons or entities whose identities, capacities and/or culpability have not yet been discovered but who are in some manner liable for the damages sought 1 COMPLAINTYn VW B® wWNH wo © 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 in this lawsuit. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to show their names and capacities when same have been ascertained. THE INCIDENT 4. Atall relevant times Defendant SAMUEL CABLE, CORAL CABLE, DOE | and DOE 2 (“defendants” or “tenants”) were residential tenants at 350 PASEO DE PLAYA VENTURA CA 93001-2764 (‘insured property”) and had a lease with or for the benefit of Kay Giles (“the insured”). The lease provided, either expressly and/or implicitly, that the defendants were responsible for damage to the property they caused other than ordinary wear and tear, that the tenants would not damage the premises through negligence and that the tenants would return the property to the insured in good condition, save ordinary wear and tear, upon termination of the lease term. 5. During this tenancy, the insured had acquired and maintained a policy of insurance with plaintiff insuring the property against various perils, including water damage. 6. On or about February 21, 2020, defendants, tenants, while occupying the insured property, negligently managed a small toilet line leak. Specifically, earlier in the week, they noticed a small leak where the water line connected to the back of a toilet in the unit. Upon noticing the leak, the tenants turned the water off to that toilet at the wall and used the second toilet in the property for the next couple days. The tenants did not contact the property management group to advise them of the leak. The tenant was planning on attempting the repair but had only tightened the fitting at the connection point of the toilet, did nothing else, and then turned the water back on which caused the line to fail and a massive release of water into the unit. The tenants then rotated the handle twice which caused the valve to fail and water continued to flood the unit and the building. 2 COMPLAINTYn UV B® WN PB Oo oO 7. Asaresult of the flooding incident, the insured ultimately made a claim for the damages under to the building which included a claim to defend and indemnify against the claims of neighboring unit owners whose property was damaged by the flooding. The claims were covered and plaintiff paid them to the extent it was required to pay them under the policy. Plaintiff, as a subrogee, now has standing to recover the amount it was required to pay out, and did in fact pay you, to cover the insured’s claims and is in a superior equitable position to that of the defendants such that the defendants should ultimately be held responsible for the loss. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 8. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs into this cause of action. 9. Atall relevant times, the defendants had a duty to properly manage, maintain and prudently use the insured property in such a manner as prevent or minimize water damage from plumbing leaks. 10. Defendants breached this duty by failing to report the small leak to the property manager and by attempting to fix or manage the leak without proper knowledge or experience in such matters, and by negligently causing the water connection to the toilet and the valve to fail. 11. This breach foreseeably resulted a massive release of water into the unit and building which spread to, penetrated and damaged a significant portion of the insured’s property and neighboring units. Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled its damages as a result of such negligence as alleged herein. 3 COMPLAINTSECOND CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF CONTRACT (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 12. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs into this cause of action. 13. The lease agreement, expressly and/or impliedly, required that defendants be responsible for and pay for damages they caused to the insured premises save ordinary wear and tear, and, those damages caused by their negligence. 14. As set forth above, the defendants negligently caused a plumbing failure and flooding within the unit. 15. In breach of their contractual obligations to pay for such damages, they have failed and refused to accept responsibility for such negligence or pay for the damages. 16. Asadirect and proximate result of this breach, defendants have caused the insured to incur the damages alleged herein. Plaintiff now has standing as a subrogee and/or assignee to recover the damages sought in this action. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION IMPLIED EQUITABLE INDEMNITY (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 17. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs into this cause of action. 18. The conduct, circumstances and facts alleged herein, entitle plaintiff to recover the amounts it paid out as a result of the incident under the doctrine of implied equitable indemnity. i i H 4 COMPLAINTBb WN Fe aI nw PRAYER 1. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendants and each of them, on all causes of action, separately and jointly, as follows: 1. Economic damages in the sum of $53,459.00; 2. Interest on the damages from February 21, 2020; 3. For costs of suit incurred; 4. For such other and further relief that the court considers proper. Date: February 21, 2023 A, i, AN I, usan M. Benson Esq. Joseph M. Pleasant, Esq. BENSON LEGAL, APC Attorneys for Plaintiff 5 COMPLAINT