Preview
1 Robert H. Roe, State Bar No. 091041
15651 Dickens Street, No. 104
2 Encino, CA 91436-3133
Tel. (760) 443-0984
3 Fax. (818) 235-0172
rroe231@gmail.com
4
Daniel D. Hollingsworth, State Bar No. 304617
5 HOLLINGSWORTH LAW FIRM
550 Figueroa Street, Suite F
6 Monterey, CA 93940
Tel. (831) 920-0777
7 Fax. (831) 920-0840
daniel@hollingsworthlegal.com
8
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
9 Robert Clampett and Marianna Clampett
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
11
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
12
(UNLIMITED CIVIL)
13
14 ROBERT CLAMPETT, an individual, and Case No. 21CV001804
MARIANNA CLAMPETT, an individual,
15 PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY
Plaintiffs, OBJECTIONS IN OPPOSITION TO
16 DEFENDANT HOMESITE INSURANCE
vs. COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA’S MOTION
17 FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN
THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
18 HOMESITE INSURANCE COMPANY ADJUDICATION
OF CALIFORNIA, a California corporation;
19 and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Date: August 11, 2023
Time: 8:30 a.m.
20 Defendants. Dept. 14
21 Action Filed: June 3, 2021
Trial Date: September 18, 2023
22
Plaintiffs Robert Clampett and Marianna Clampett hereby submit the following
23
evidentiary objections to the evidence filed by Defendant Homesite Insurance Company
24
of California’s in support of its motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative,
25
summary adjudication.
26
27
Clampett v. Homesite Insurance Company of California Plaintiffs’ Objections to Evidence in Opposition to
28 1 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
1
2 OBJECTION NO. 1
3 Material Objected to: Defendant’s Evidence, Exhibit AA at pp. 369 (Charles
4 Linard Depo., Exhibit 14 thereto.)
5 “Over an extended period of time, water has penetrated these cracks and caused
6 the window and door framing to rot. ”
7 Grounds for Objection:
8 Cal. Evid. Code §§ 720, 800-803; Greshko v. County of Los Angeles (1987)194 Cal. App.
9 3d 822, 834. Improper opinion evidence that does not lay a foundation as to the individual's
10 special knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education or a statement of the basis of the
11 opinion.
12 Defendant’s Evidence does not include any foundation for Charles Linard to
13 express an expert opinion as to the cause of damage to Plaintiff’s residence. To the
14 contrary, his deposition testimony reveals he has no basis to render an expert opinion on
15 this subject:
16 1. He had no engineering education or training other than one class he took in
17 college but could not remember (Plaintiffs’ Compendium, Ex. “5” at 17:5-18:14);
18 2. No college or general experience in construction (Plaintiffs’ Evidence, Ex. “5”
19 at 18:3-19:20); and
20 3. No licenses in engineering or construction (Plaintiffs’ Evidence, Ex. “5” at
21 19:21-23).
22 Mr. Linard’s statements are being asserted by Defendant as to causation of
23 damages to Plaintiffs’ residence, which is referred to in Defendant’s Memorandum at:
24 1. P. 20:1-3 (“As a result of Plaintiffs’ failure to make timely repairs, severe
25 mold and rot was allowed to develop throughout the Property. [UMF No.
26 12-13.]”)
27
Clampett v. Homesite Insurance Company of California Plaintiffs’ Objections to Evidence in Opposition to
28 2 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
1 2. P. 21 4-5 [“Independent adjuster, Linard, observed street cracks along the
2 windows and door openings, which allowed water to intrude, and mold and
3 rot to develop over an extended period of time.”]
4 Objection. Lack of foundation for expert opinion. (Ev. Code, §§ 720, 801-803.) If
5 an expert provides an opinion in support of a motion for summary judgment, he or she
6 must provide the facts upon which the expert's conclusions are based. “ ‘ “[A]n expert's
7 opinion rendered without a reasoned explanation of why the underlying facts lead to the
8 ultimate conclusion has no evidentiary value because an expert opinion is worth no more
9 than the reasons and facts on which it is based. [Citations.]” [Citation.]’ ” (Brown v.
10 Ransweiler (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 516, 530, italics added.) “[A]n opinion unsupported
11 by reasons or explanations does not establish the absence of a material fact issue for
12 trial, as required for summary judgment.” (Kelley v. Trunk (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 519 at
13 p. 524, italics added.)”
14 There is no evidence presented by Defendant as to what facts Linard relied upon in
15 making conclusions as to the causation of damages to Plaintiffs’ residence.
16
17 Court’s Ruling on Objection No. 1: Sustained: ______________
18 Overruled: ______________
19
20 OBJECTION NO. 2
21 Material Objected to: Defendant’s Evidence, Exhibit AA at pp. 372 (Charles
22 Linard Depo., Exhibit 15 thereto.)
23 “Over an extended period of time, water has penetrated these cracks and caused
24 the window and door framing to rot. ”
25 Grounds for Objection:
26 Cal. Evid. Code §§ 720, 800-803; Greshko v. County of Los Angeles (1987)194 Cal. App.
27
Clampett v. Homesite Insurance Company of California Plaintiffs’ Objections to Evidence in Opposition to
28 3 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
1 3d 822, 834. Improper opinion evidence that does not lay a foundation as to the individual's
2 special knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education or a statement of the basis of the
3 opinion.
4 Defendant’s Evidence does not include any foundation for Charles Linard to
5 express an expert opinion as to the cause of damage to Plaintiff’s residence. To the
6 contrary, his deposition testimony reveals he has no basis to render an expert opinion on
7 this subject:
8 1. He had no engineering education or training other than one class he took in
9 college but could not remember (Plaintiffs’ Compendium, Ex. “5” at 17:5-18:14);
10 2. No college or general experience in construction (Plaintiffs’ Evidence, Ex. “5”
11 at 18:3-19:20); and
12 3. No licenses in engineering or construction (Plaintiffs’ Evidence, Ex. “5” at
13 19:21-23).
14 Mr. Linard’s statements are being asserted by Defendant as to causation of
15 damages to Plaintiffs’ residence, which is referred to in Defendant’s Memorandum at:
16 1. P. 20:1-3 (“As a result of Plaintiffs’ failure to make timely repairs, severe
17 mold and rot was allowed to develop throughout the Property. [UMF No.
18 12-13.]”)
19 2. P. 21 4-5 [“Independent adjuster, Linard, observed street cracks along the
20 windows and door openings, which allowed water to intrude, and mold and
21 rot to develop over an extended period of time.”]
22 Objection. Lack of foundation for expert opinion. (Ev. Code, §§ 720, 801-803.) If
23 an expert provides an opinion in support of a motion for summary judgment, he or she
24 must provide the facts upon which the expert's conclusions are based. “ ‘ “[A]n expert's
25 opinion rendered without a reasoned explanation of why the underlying facts lead to the
26 ultimate conclusion has no evidentiary value because an expert opinion is worth no more
27
Clampett v. Homesite Insurance Company of California Plaintiffs’ Objections to Evidence in Opposition to
28 4 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
1 than the reasons and facts on which it is based. [Citations.]” [Citation.]’ ” (Brown v.
2 Ransweiler (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 516, 530, italics added.) “[A]n opinion unsupported
3 by reasons or explanations does not establish the absence of a material fact issue for
4 trial, as required for summary judgment.” (Kelley v. Trunk (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 519 at
5 p. 524, italics added.)”
6 There is no evidence presented by Defendant as to what facts Linard relied upon in
7 making conclusions as to the causation of damages to Plaintiffs’ residence.
8
9 Court’s Ruling on Objection No. 2: Sustained: ______________
10 Overruled: ______________
11
12
13 OBJECTION NO. 3
14 Material Objected to: Defendant’s Evidence, Exhibit G at p. 125-126 (Linard
15 Report - portions objected to are in italics and underlined).
16 “CAUSE OF LOSS
There are what appear to be consistent with stress cracks along the
17 window and door openings throughout the dwelling. The cracks appear on
the stucco exterior as well as the drywall interior. They could be caused
18 from the settling and shifting of the structure. The damages are more
pronounced along the exposed rear elevation that sits on the top of a
19 mountain. Over an extended period of time, water has penetrated these
cracks and caused the window and door framing to rot. There is also water
20 and mold damage inside the dwelling.
21 “ADJUSTER NARRATIVE
Since the previous report I have proceed with a repair estimate for
22 the resulting water damages. The rot, mold, and long term damage will fall
under the $2,500 limit. The other water damages (within this last winter)
23 fall under coverage A.
24 The rot, mold, and long term water damages are extensive. It is not
clear if the stress cracks were caused as a result of the long term damages
25 or the shifting of the structure to allow water to penetrate over an extended
period of time. Regardless, I have included the rear elevation stucco along
26 the garage/guest wing of the dwelling in the estimate. These costs along
exceed the $2,500 limit. The insulation, framing, additional stucco, and
27
Clampett v. Homesite Insurance Company of California Plaintiffs’ Objections to Evidence in Opposition to
28 5 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
1 interior stress cracks (without fresh water damage) were not included. If all
rot and long term damages were included the cost of repairs would likely
2 exceed $100,000.00.
3 The water stains and new leaks were included in the estimate in the
dining room, center hall, living room, side entry, garage, and master
4 bedroom. Drywall, insulation, and painting repairs are required. This does
not include the stress cracks, rot, or long term water damages.
5
To my understanding, the contractor is still completing the demo to
6 try to determine the extent of the long term damage. No estimate as been
prepared.
7
SUBROGATION
8 There is no subrogation opportunity as the cause of the loss appears
to be consistent with normal wear and tear.
9
SALVAGE
10 The items involved with water and wind damage have no value.”
11 Grounds for Objection:
12 Cal. Evid. Code §§ 720, 800-803; Greshko v. County of Los Angeles (1987)194 Cal. App.
13 3d 822, 834. Improper opinion evidence that does not lay a foundation as to the individual's
14 special knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education or a statement of the basis of the
15 opinion.
16 Defendant’s Evidence does not include any foundation for Charles Linard to
17 express an expert opinion as to the cause of damage to Plaintiff’s residence. To the
18 contrary, his deposition testimony reveals he has no basis to render an expert opinion on
19 this subject:
20 1. He had no engineering education or training other than one class he took in
21 college but could not remember (Plaintiffs’ Compendium, Ex. “5” at 17:5-18:14);
22 2. No college or general experience in construction (Plaintiffs’ Evidence, Ex. “5”
23 at 18:3-19:20); and
24 3. No licenses in engineering or construction (Plaintiffs’ Evidence, Ex. “5” at
25 19:21-23).
26 Mr. Linard’s statements are being asserted by Defendant as to causation of
27
Clampett v. Homesite Insurance Company of California Plaintiffs’ Objections to Evidence in Opposition to
28 6 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
1 damages to Plaintiffs’ residence, which is referred to in Defendant’s Memorandum at:
2 1. P. 20:1-3 (“As a result of Plaintiffs’ failure to make timely repairs, severe
3 mold and rot was allowed to develop throughout the Property. [UMF No.
4 12-13.]”)
5 2. P. 21 4-5 [“Independent adjuster, Linard, observed street cracks along the
6 windows and door openings, which allowed water to intrude, and mold and
7 rot to develop over an extended period of time.”]
8 Objection. Lack of foundation for expert opinion. (Ev. Code, §§ 720, 801-803.) If
9 an expert provides an opinion in support of a motion for summary judgment, he or she
10 must provide the facts upon which the expert's conclusions are based. “ ‘ “[A]n expert's
11 opinion rendered without a reasoned explanation of why the underlying facts lead to the
12 ultimate conclusion has no evidentiary value because an expert opinion is worth no more
13 than the reasons and facts on which it is based. [Citations.]” [Citation.]’ ” (Brown v.
14 Ransweiler (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 516, 530, italics added.) “[A]n opinion unsupported
15 by reasons or explanations does not establish the absence of a material fact issue for
16 trial, as required for summary judgment.” (Kelley v. Trunk (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 519 at
17 p. 524, italics added.)”
18 There is no evidence presented by Defendant what facts Linard relied upon in
19 making conclusions that the damage to Plaintiffs’ residence was “mold”, “rot” or “long
20 term damage”.
21 Court’s Ruling on Objection No. 3: Sustained: ______________
22 Overruled: ______________
23
24 OBJECTION NO. 4
25 Material Objected to: Defendant’s Evidence, Exhibit X at p. 322
26 Grounds for Objection: Hearsay without an exception. (Ev. Code, § 1200.)
27
Clampett v. Homesite Insurance Company of California Plaintiffs’ Objections to Evidence in Opposition to
28 7 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
1 Relevance. (Ev. Code, § 210.) The e-mails are irrelevant because the May 6, 2021
2 unanimous appraisal award ultimately set the amount of plaintiffs' loss at $555,070.63,
3 which was substantially higher than Long's December 2019 estimate. Homesite is bound
4 by the findings of the appraisal panel and cannot dispute the scope of loss or cost of repair
5 determined by the appraisal panel.
6
7
8 Court’s Ruling on Objection No. 4: Sustained: ______________
9 Overruled: ______________
10
11
12
13 OBJECTION NO. 5
14 Material Objected to: Callahan Decl., ¶ 33, 10:24-20 .)
15 “33. The Claim File confirms that California licensed, Donan civil
engineer, PhuNguyen (“Nguyen”) inspected the Property on May 3, 2020,
16 with Hollingsworth and Plaintiffs’ contractor Tom Long in attendance, and
that Nguyen prepared a report of his observations, findings, and opinions
17 that he provided to Homesite, dated May 20, 2020. In his report, Nguyen
noted that Hollingsworth and Long had advised him that heavy rains and
18 strong winds from late 2018 through early 2019, resulted in water
intrusions, primarily around the doors and windows throughout Plaintiffs’
19 residence. After leaks to the interior of the Property were noted, interior
drywall and exterior stucco were removed, and it was determined that there
20 was rot around the doors, windows and wall assemblies. Nguyen observed
that a good deal of dry wall in the interior, and stucco on the exterior had
21 been removed. He observed deteriorated components of the wall
assemblies, mold, dark water stains on various wood and metal components
22 of the walls and window/door assemblies, as well as other faulty portions of
the construction. Nguyen identified the three measurable observations on
23 the wood in the residence; discoloration, deterioration and permanent
swelling, that provide a scientific basis for his conclusion that the water
24 intrusion was long term.
25 “After he completed his inspection, Nguyen also reviewed the
historical weather data, and noted that there were no severe winds reported
26 for the area between November 2018 and February 2019, and that there
appeared to only be excessive rain in February 2019. Ultimately, Nguyen
27
Clampett v. Homesite Insurance Company of California Plaintiffs’ Objections to Evidence in Opposition to
28 8 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
1 issued a report of his findings, opining that there were normal cracks in the
exterior stucco, that had allowed long term water intrusions, primarily
2 around the doors and windows, resulting in the darkly stained and
deteriorated wall assemblies. Nguyen also noted that in reaching his
3 conclusions, he relied in part on information provided him at the time of his
inspection by Long and Hollingsworth that rotted wall framing members
4 had been removed before his inspection, and that the totality of the
deteriorated conditions in the wall assembly provided scientific evidence of
5 long-term water intrusion.”
6 Grounds for Objection:
7 Lack of foundation. (Evidence Code, § 702(a).) Other than reviewing the claim
8 file to see that Nyugen’s report is part of the file, Callahan has no personal knowledge of
9 what Nguyen did or why, other than what is stated in Nguyen’s report. His statements
10 include his personal interpretation of the contents of the report. Hearsay without an
11 exception. (Ev. Code, § 1200.)
12
13 Court’s Ruling on Objection No. 5: Sustained: ______________
14 Overruled: ______________
15
16 OBJECTION NO. 6
17 Material Objected to: Defendant’s Exhibit S (Letter to Homesite by Attorney
18 David Hollingsworth dated September 2, 2020).
19 Grounds for Objection:
20 Evidence Code § 1152, privileged as the letter was intended to facilitate a
21 settlement of Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant. Hearsay under Ev. Code § 1200(b)
22 without an exception.
23 Cal. Evid. Code §§ 720, 800-803; Greshko v. County of Los Angeles (1987)194 Cal. App.
24 3d 822, 834. Improper opinion evidence that does not lay a foundation as to the individual's
25 special knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education or a statement of the basis of the
26 opinion. Hollingsworth’s letter makes statements constituting expert opinions that require
27
Clampett v. Homesite Insurance Company of California Plaintiffs’ Objections to Evidence in Opposition to
28 9 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
1 expert qualifications.
2
3 Court’s Ruling on Objection No. 6: Sustained: ______________
4 Overruled: ______________
5
OBJECTION NO. 7
6
Material Objected to: Callahan Decl., paragraph 22:
7
“22. The Claim File confirms that Homesite adjuster Lee and independent
8 adjuster Linard exchanged emails on August 27, 2019, and August 28,
2019, after Linard had inspected Plaintiffs’ Property, discussing the damage
9 Linard had observed at the Property. Linard noted that he observed cracking
at all the doors and windows in the residence that appeared to have allowed
10 for a great deal of long-term water damage, including mold and rot, which
appeared likely to require the replacement of all the window framing,
11 although Linard did observe some minor water staining that was relatively
recent. In my review of the Claim File, I noted that Lee advised Linard that
12 the Policy included a $2500.00 mold and rot limit, which I was able to
verify accurately reflects that while mold and rot was generally excluded
13 from the coverage provided by the standard Homesite homeowner’s policy,
the Clampetts had purchased additional coverage for mold and rot pursuant
14 to the terms of a Limited Fungi, Wet or Dry Rot Endorsement, that provided
for $2500.00 in mold and rot coverage. Attached to Homesite’s Index of
15 Evidence filed concurrently herewith and marked as Exhibit F are true and
correct copies of the emails between Jacob Lee and Charles Linard between
16 August 27th and 28th of 2019, which have been maintained in the Claim
File, consistent with Homesites’ standard practice and procedures.”
17
Grounds for Objection:
18
Lack of foundation. (Evidence Code, § 702(a).) Other than reviewing the claim
19
file to see that Linard’s report and communications are part of the file, Callahan has no
20
personal knowledge of what Nguyen did or why, other than what is stated in Nguyen’s
21
report. His statements include his personal interpretation of the contents of the report.
22
Hearsay without an exception. (Ev. Code, § 1200.)
23
24
Court’s Ruling on Objection No. 6: Sustained: ______________
25
Overruled: ______________
26
27
Clampett v. Homesite Insurance Company of California Plaintiffs’ Objections to Evidence in Opposition to
28 10 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
1 HOLLINGSWORTH LAW FIRM
�,.4�
2 Dated: August 7, 2023
3
me1-:oingswrt1
4 Attorney for Plaintiffs, Robert Clampett
and Marianna qampett
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Clampett v. Homesite Insurance Company of California Plaintiffs' Objections to Evidence in Opposition to
28 11 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
Preview
1 Robert H. Roe, State Bar No. 091041 15651 Dickens Street, No. 104 2 Encino, CA 91436-3133 Tel. (760) 443-0984 3 Fax. (818) 235-0172 rroe231@gmail.com 4 Daniel D. Hollingsworth, State Bar No. 304617 5 HOLLINGSWORTH LAW FIRM 550 Figueroa Street, Suite F 6 Monterey, CA 93940 Tel. (831) 920-0777 7 Fax. (831) 920-0840 daniel@hollingsworthlegal.com 8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 9 Robert Clampett and Marianna Clampett 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF MONTEREY 12 (UNLIMITED CIVIL) 13 14 ROBERT CLAMPETT, an individual, and Case No. 21CV001804 MARIANNA CLAMPETT, an individual, 15 PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY Plaintiffs, OBJECTIONS IN OPPOSITION TO 16 DEFENDANT HOMESITE INSURANCE vs. COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA’S MOTION 17 FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY 18 HOMESITE INSURANCE COMPANY ADJUDICATION OF CALIFORNIA, a California corporation; 19 and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Date: August 11, 2023 Time: 8:30 a.m. 20 Defendants. Dept. 14 21 Action Filed: June 3, 2021 Trial Date: September 18, 2023 22 Plaintiffs Robert Clampett and Marianna Clampett hereby submit the following 23 evidentiary objections to the evidence filed by Defendant Homesite Insurance Company 24 of California’s in support of its motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, 25 summary adjudication. 26 27 Clampett v. Homesite Insurance Company of California Plaintiffs’ Objections to Evidence in Opposition to 28 1 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment 1 2 OBJECTION NO. 1 3 Material Objected to: Defendant’s Evidence, Exhibit AA at pp. 369 (Charles 4 Linard Depo., Exhibit 14 thereto.) 5 “Over an extended period of time, water has penetrated these cracks and caused 6 the window and door framing to rot. ” 7 Grounds for Objection: 8 Cal. Evid. Code §§ 720, 800-803; Greshko v. County of Los Angeles (1987)194 Cal. App. 9 3d 822, 834. Improper opinion evidence that does not lay a foundation as to the individual's 10 special knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education or a statement of the basis of the 11 opinion. 12 Defendant’s Evidence does not include any foundation for Charles Linard to 13 express an expert opinion as to the cause of damage to Plaintiff’s residence. To the 14 contrary, his deposition testimony reveals he has no basis to render an expert opinion on 15 this subject: 16 1. He had no engineering education or training other than one class he took in 17 college but could not remember (Plaintiffs’ Compendium, Ex. “5” at 17:5-18:14); 18 2. No college or general experience in construction (Plaintiffs’ Evidence, Ex. “5” 19 at 18:3-19:20); and 20 3. No licenses in engineering or construction (Plaintiffs’ Evidence, Ex. “5” at 21 19:21-23). 22 Mr. Linard’s statements are being asserted by Defendant as to causation of 23 damages to Plaintiffs’ residence, which is referred to in Defendant’s Memorandum at: 24 1. P. 20:1-3 (“As a result of Plaintiffs’ failure to make timely repairs, severe 25 mold and rot was allowed to develop throughout the Property. [UMF No. 26 12-13.]”) 27 Clampett v. Homesite Insurance Company of California Plaintiffs’ Objections to Evidence in Opposition to 28 2 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment 1 2. P. 21 4-5 [“Independent adjuster, Linard, observed street cracks along the 2 windows and door openings, which allowed water to intrude, and mold and 3 rot to develop over an extended period of time.”] 4 Objection. Lack of foundation for expert opinion. (Ev. Code, §§ 720, 801-803.) If 5 an expert provides an opinion in support of a motion for summary judgment, he or she 6 must provide the facts upon which the expert's conclusions are based. “ ‘ “[A]n expert's 7 opinion rendered without a reasoned explanation of why the underlying facts lead to the 8 ultimate conclusion has no evidentiary value because an expert opinion is worth no more 9 than the reasons and facts on which it is based. [Citations.]” [Citation.]’ ” (Brown v. 10 Ransweiler (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 516, 530, italics added.) “[A]n opinion unsupported 11 by reasons or explanations does not establish the absence of a material fact issue for 12 trial, as required for summary judgment.” (Kelley v. Trunk (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 519 at 13 p. 524, italics added.)” 14 There is no evidence presented by Defendant as to what facts Linard relied upon in 15 making conclusions as to the causation of damages to Plaintiffs’ residence. 16 17 Court’s Ruling on Objection No. 1: Sustained: ______________ 18 Overruled: ______________ 19 20 OBJECTION NO. 2 21 Material Objected to: Defendant’s Evidence, Exhibit AA at pp. 372 (Charles 22 Linard Depo., Exhibit 15 thereto.) 23 “Over an extended period of time, water has penetrated these cracks and caused 24 the window and door framing to rot. ” 25 Grounds for Objection: 26 Cal. Evid. Code §§ 720, 800-803; Greshko v. County of Los Angeles (1987)194 Cal. App. 27 Clampett v. Homesite Insurance Company of California Plaintiffs’ Objections to Evidence in Opposition to 28 3 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment 1 3d 822, 834. Improper opinion evidence that does not lay a foundation as to the individual's 2 special knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education or a statement of the basis of the 3 opinion. 4 Defendant’s Evidence does not include any foundation for Charles Linard to 5 express an expert opinion as to the cause of damage to Plaintiff’s residence. To the 6 contrary, his deposition testimony reveals he has no basis to render an expert opinion on 7 this subject: 8 1. He had no engineering education or training other than one class he took in 9 college but could not remember (Plaintiffs’ Compendium, Ex. “5” at 17:5-18:14); 10 2. No college or general experience in construction (Plaintiffs’ Evidence, Ex. “5” 11 at 18:3-19:20); and 12 3. No licenses in engineering or construction (Plaintiffs’ Evidence, Ex. “5” at 13 19:21-23). 14 Mr. Linard’s statements are being asserted by Defendant as to causation of 15 damages to Plaintiffs’ residence, which is referred to in Defendant’s Memorandum at: 16 1. P. 20:1-3 (“As a result of Plaintiffs’ failure to make timely repairs, severe 17 mold and rot was allowed to develop throughout the Property. [UMF No. 18 12-13.]”) 19 2. P. 21 4-5 [“Independent adjuster, Linard, observed street cracks along the 20 windows and door openings, which allowed water to intrude, and mold and 21 rot to develop over an extended period of time.”] 22 Objection. Lack of foundation for expert opinion. (Ev. Code, §§ 720, 801-803.) If 23 an expert provides an opinion in support of a motion for summary judgment, he or she 24 must provide the facts upon which the expert's conclusions are based. “ ‘ “[A]n expert's 25 opinion rendered without a reasoned explanation of why the underlying facts lead to the 26 ultimate conclusion has no evidentiary value because an expert opinion is worth no more 27 Clampett v. Homesite Insurance Company of California Plaintiffs’ Objections to Evidence in Opposition to 28 4 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment 1 than the reasons and facts on which it is based. [Citations.]” [Citation.]’ ” (Brown v. 2 Ransweiler (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 516, 530, italics added.) “[A]n opinion unsupported 3 by reasons or explanations does not establish the absence of a material fact issue for 4 trial, as required for summary judgment.” (Kelley v. Trunk (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 519 at 5 p. 524, italics added.)” 6 There is no evidence presented by Defendant as to what facts Linard relied upon in 7 making conclusions as to the causation of damages to Plaintiffs’ residence. 8 9 Court’s Ruling on Objection No. 2: Sustained: ______________ 10 Overruled: ______________ 11 12 13 OBJECTION NO. 3 14 Material Objected to: Defendant’s Evidence, Exhibit G at p. 125-126 (Linard 15 Report - portions objected to are in italics and underlined). 16 “CAUSE OF LOSS There are what appear to be consistent with stress cracks along the 17 window and door openings throughout the dwelling. The cracks appear on the stucco exterior as well as the drywall interior. They could be caused 18 from the settling and shifting of the structure. The damages are more pronounced along the exposed rear elevation that sits on the top of a 19 mountain. Over an extended period of time, water has penetrated these cracks and caused the window and door framing to rot. There is also water 20 and mold damage inside the dwelling. 21 “ADJUSTER NARRATIVE Since the previous report I have proceed with a repair estimate for 22 the resulting water damages. The rot, mold, and long term damage will fall under the $2,500 limit. The other water damages (within this last winter) 23 fall under coverage A. 24 The rot, mold, and long term water damages are extensive. It is not clear if the stress cracks were caused as a result of the long term damages 25 or the shifting of the structure to allow water to penetrate over an extended period of time. Regardless, I have included the rear elevation stucco along 26 the garage/guest wing of the dwelling in the estimate. These costs along exceed the $2,500 limit. The insulation, framing, additional stucco, and 27 Clampett v. Homesite Insurance Company of California Plaintiffs’ Objections to Evidence in Opposition to 28 5 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment 1 interior stress cracks (without fresh water damage) were not included. If all rot and long term damages were included the cost of repairs would likely 2 exceed $100,000.00. 3 The water stains and new leaks were included in the estimate in the dining room, center hall, living room, side entry, garage, and master 4 bedroom. Drywall, insulation, and painting repairs are required. This does not include the stress cracks, rot, or long term water damages. 5 To my understanding, the contractor is still completing the demo to 6 try to determine the extent of the long term damage. No estimate as been prepared. 7 SUBROGATION 8 There is no subrogation opportunity as the cause of the loss appears to be consistent with normal wear and tear. 9 SALVAGE 10 The items involved with water and wind damage have no value.” 11 Grounds for Objection: 12 Cal. Evid. Code §§ 720, 800-803; Greshko v. County of Los Angeles (1987)194 Cal. App. 13 3d 822, 834. Improper opinion evidence that does not lay a foundation as to the individual's 14 special knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education or a statement of the basis of the 15 opinion. 16 Defendant’s Evidence does not include any foundation for Charles Linard to 17 express an expert opinion as to the cause of damage to Plaintiff’s residence. To the 18 contrary, his deposition testimony reveals he has no basis to render an expert opinion on 19 this subject: 20 1. He had no engineering education or training other than one class he took in 21 college but could not remember (Plaintiffs’ Compendium, Ex. “5” at 17:5-18:14); 22 2. No college or general experience in construction (Plaintiffs’ Evidence, Ex. “5” 23 at 18:3-19:20); and 24 3. No licenses in engineering or construction (Plaintiffs’ Evidence, Ex. “5” at 25 19:21-23). 26 Mr. Linard’s statements are being asserted by Defendant as to causation of 27 Clampett v. Homesite Insurance Company of California Plaintiffs’ Objections to Evidence in Opposition to 28 6 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment 1 damages to Plaintiffs’ residence, which is referred to in Defendant’s Memorandum at: 2 1. P. 20:1-3 (“As a result of Plaintiffs’ failure to make timely repairs, severe 3 mold and rot was allowed to develop throughout the Property. [UMF No. 4 12-13.]”) 5 2. P. 21 4-5 [“Independent adjuster, Linard, observed street cracks along the 6 windows and door openings, which allowed water to intrude, and mold and 7 rot to develop over an extended period of time.”] 8 Objection. Lack of foundation for expert opinion. (Ev. Code, §§ 720, 801-803.) If 9 an expert provides an opinion in support of a motion for summary judgment, he or she 10 must provide the facts upon which the expert's conclusions are based. “ ‘ “[A]n expert's 11 opinion rendered without a reasoned explanation of why the underlying facts lead to the 12 ultimate conclusion has no evidentiary value because an expert opinion is worth no more 13 than the reasons and facts on which it is based. [Citations.]” [Citation.]’ ” (Brown v. 14 Ransweiler (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 516, 530, italics added.) “[A]n opinion unsupported 15 by reasons or explanations does not establish the absence of a material fact issue for 16 trial, as required for summary judgment.” (Kelley v. Trunk (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 519 at 17 p. 524, italics added.)” 18 There is no evidence presented by Defendant what facts Linard relied upon in 19 making conclusions that the damage to Plaintiffs’ residence was “mold”, “rot” or “long 20 term damage”. 21 Court’s Ruling on Objection No. 3: Sustained: ______________ 22 Overruled: ______________ 23 24 OBJECTION NO. 4 25 Material Objected to: Defendant’s Evidence, Exhibit X at p. 322 26 Grounds for Objection: Hearsay without an exception. (Ev. Code, § 1200.) 27 Clampett v. Homesite Insurance Company of California Plaintiffs’ Objections to Evidence in Opposition to 28 7 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment 1 Relevance. (Ev. Code, § 210.) The e-mails are irrelevant because the May 6, 2021 2 unanimous appraisal award ultimately set the amount of plaintiffs' loss at $555,070.63, 3 which was substantially higher than Long's December 2019 estimate. Homesite is bound 4 by the findings of the appraisal panel and cannot dispute the scope of loss or cost of repair 5 determined by the appraisal panel. 6 7 8 Court’s Ruling on Objection No. 4: Sustained: ______________ 9 Overruled: ______________ 10 11 12 13 OBJECTION NO. 5 14 Material Objected to: Callahan Decl., ¶ 33, 10:24-20 .) 15 “33. The Claim File confirms that California licensed, Donan civil engineer, PhuNguyen (“Nguyen”) inspected the Property on May 3, 2020, 16 with Hollingsworth and Plaintiffs’ contractor Tom Long in attendance, and that Nguyen prepared a report of his observations, findings, and opinions 17 that he provided to Homesite, dated May 20, 2020. In his report, Nguyen noted that Hollingsworth and Long had advised him that heavy rains and 18 strong winds from late 2018 through early 2019, resulted in water intrusions, primarily around the doors and windows throughout Plaintiffs’ 19 residence. After leaks to the interior of the Property were noted, interior drywall and exterior stucco were removed, and it was determined that there 20 was rot around the doors, windows and wall assemblies. Nguyen observed that a good deal of dry wall in the interior, and stucco on the exterior had 21 been removed. He observed deteriorated components of the wall assemblies, mold, dark water stains on various wood and metal components 22 of the walls and window/door assemblies, as well as other faulty portions of the construction. Nguyen identified the three measurable observations on 23 the wood in the residence; discoloration, deterioration and permanent swelling, that provide a scientific basis for his conclusion that the water 24 intrusion was long term. 25 “After he completed his inspection, Nguyen also reviewed the historical weather data, and noted that there were no severe winds reported 26 for the area between November 2018 and February 2019, and that there appeared to only be excessive rain in February 2019. Ultimately, Nguyen 27 Clampett v. Homesite Insurance Company of California Plaintiffs’ Objections to Evidence in Opposition to 28 8 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment 1 issued a report of his findings, opining that there were normal cracks in the exterior stucco, that had allowed long term water intrusions, primarily 2 around the doors and windows, resulting in the darkly stained and deteriorated wall assemblies. Nguyen also noted that in reaching his 3 conclusions, he relied in part on information provided him at the time of his inspection by Long and Hollingsworth that rotted wall framing members 4 had been removed before his inspection, and that the totality of the deteriorated conditions in the wall assembly provided scientific evidence of 5 long-term water intrusion.” 6 Grounds for Objection: 7 Lack of foundation. (Evidence Code, § 702(a).) Other than reviewing the claim 8 file to see that Nyugen’s report is part of the file, Callahan has no personal knowledge of 9 what Nguyen did or why, other than what is stated in Nguyen’s report. His statements 10 include his personal interpretation of the contents of the report. Hearsay without an 11 exception. (Ev. Code, § 1200.) 12 13 Court’s Ruling on Objection No. 5: Sustained: ______________ 14 Overruled: ______________ 15 16 OBJECTION NO. 6 17 Material Objected to: Defendant’s Exhibit S (Letter to Homesite by Attorney 18 David Hollingsworth dated September 2, 2020). 19 Grounds for Objection: 20 Evidence Code § 1152, privileged as the letter was intended to facilitate a 21 settlement of Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant. Hearsay under Ev. Code § 1200(b) 22 without an exception. 23 Cal. Evid. Code §§ 720, 800-803; Greshko v. County of Los Angeles (1987)194 Cal. App. 24 3d 822, 834. Improper opinion evidence that does not lay a foundation as to the individual's 25 special knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education or a statement of the basis of the 26 opinion. Hollingsworth’s letter makes statements constituting expert opinions that require 27 Clampett v. Homesite Insurance Company of California Plaintiffs’ Objections to Evidence in Opposition to 28 9 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment 1 expert qualifications. 2 3 Court’s Ruling on Objection No. 6: Sustained: ______________ 4 Overruled: ______________ 5 OBJECTION NO. 7 6 Material Objected to: Callahan Decl., paragraph 22: 7 “22. The Claim File confirms that Homesite adjuster Lee and independent 8 adjuster Linard exchanged emails on August 27, 2019, and August 28, 2019, after Linard had inspected Plaintiffs’ Property, discussing the damage 9 Linard had observed at the Property. Linard noted that he observed cracking at all the doors and windows in the residence that appeared to have allowed 10 for a great deal of long-term water damage, including mold and rot, which appeared likely to require the replacement of all the window framing, 11 although Linard did observe some minor water staining that was relatively recent. In my review of the Claim File, I noted that Lee advised Linard that 12 the Policy included a $2500.00 mold and rot limit, which I was able to verify accurately reflects that while mold and rot was generally excluded 13 from the coverage provided by the standard Homesite homeowner’s policy, the Clampetts had purchased additional coverage for mold and rot pursuant 14 to the terms of a Limited Fungi, Wet or Dry Rot Endorsement, that provided for $2500.00 in mold and rot coverage. Attached to Homesite’s Index of 15 Evidence filed concurrently herewith and marked as Exhibit F are true and correct copies of the emails between Jacob Lee and Charles Linard between 16 August 27th and 28th of 2019, which have been maintained in the Claim File, consistent with Homesites’ standard practice and procedures.” 17 Grounds for Objection: 18 Lack of foundation. (Evidence Code, § 702(a).) Other than reviewing the claim 19 file to see that Linard’s report and communications are part of the file, Callahan has no 20 personal knowledge of what Nguyen did or why, other than what is stated in Nguyen’s 21 report. His statements include his personal interpretation of the contents of the report. 22 Hearsay without an exception. (Ev. Code, § 1200.) 23 24 Court’s Ruling on Objection No. 6: Sustained: ______________ 25 Overruled: ______________ 26 27 Clampett v. Homesite Insurance Company of California Plaintiffs’ Objections to Evidence in Opposition to 28 10 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment 1 HOLLINGSWORTH LAW FIRM �,.4� 2 Dated: August 7, 2023 3 me1-:oingswrt1 4 Attorney for Plaintiffs, Robert Clampett and Marianna qampett 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Clampett v. Homesite Insurance Company of California Plaintiffs' Objections to Evidence in Opposition to 28 11 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment