Preview
1 David R. Casady, Esq. (SBN: 273282)
Ellen Y. Hung, Esq. (SBN: 216821)
2 Anjou S. Cary, Esq. (SBN: 283116)
BERMAN BERMAN BERMAN
3 SCHNEIDER & LOWARY, LLP
2390 Professional Drive
4 Roseville, CA 95661
Telephone: (916) 846-9391
5 Facsimile: (916) 672-9290
E-Mail: drcasady@b3law.com; eyhung@b3law.com; ascary@b3law.com
6
Attorneys for Defendant, CSAA INSURANCE EXCHANGE
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA – CIVIL DIVISION
10
11 MORGAN JAFFEE AND NICOLE JAFFEE, ) CASE NO. SCV-266409
)
12 Plaintiffs, ) Assigned for All Purposes to:
) Hon. Christopher Honigsberg – Dept. 18
13 v. )
) DEFENDANT CSAA INSURANCE
14 LAWTON CONSTRUCTION AND ) EXCHANGE’S INDEX OF EXHIBITS IN
RESOTRATION, INC., BRETT LAWTON, ) SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY
15 MICHAEL MASSA, CSAA INSURANCE ) JUDGMENT
EXCHANGE, LIONSBRIDGE )
16 CONTRACTOR GROUP, and DOES 1 to 20, ) [filed concurrently with Notice of Motion &
) Motion for Summary Judgment; Separate
17 Defendants. ) Statement of Undisputed Material Facts;
) Declaration of Anjou S. Cary; Declaration of
18 ) Lindsay San Martin; and (Proposed) Order
) thereon]
19 )
) Complaint Filed: May 8, 2020
20 ) Trial Date: July 12, 2024
)
21 ) Date:
) Time:
22 ) Dept:
)
23
24 Defendant CSAA INSURANCE EXCHANGE hereby submits its Index of Exhibits in
25 Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication, as
26 follows:
27 ///
28 ///
1
Index Of Exhibits
1 1. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ First Amended
2 Complaint filed February 11, 2021;
3 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff Nicole Jaffee’s
4 Request for Production, Set One, propounded on Defendant Lawton Construction & Restoration,
5 Inc., dated July 1, 2022;
6 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of Defendant Lawton
7 Construction & Restoration, Inc.’s responses to Plaintiff Nicole Jaffee’s Request for Production, Set
8 One, dated August 3, 2022.
9 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff Nicole Jaffee’s
10 Request for Admissions, Set One, propounded on Defendant Lawton Construction & Restoration,
11 Inc., dated July 1, 2022;
12 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of Defendant Lawton
13 Construction & Restoration, Inc.’s responses to Plaintiff Nicole Jaffee’s Request for Admissions, Set
14 One, dated August 3, 2022;
15 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff Nicole Jaffee’s
16 Special Interrogatories, Set One, propounded on Defendant Lawton Construction & Restoration,
17 Inc., dated July 1, 2022;
18 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of Defendant Lawton
19 Construction & Restoration, Inc.’s responses to Plaintiff Nicole Jaffee’s Special Interrogatories, Set
20 One, dated August 4, 2022.
21 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff Nicole Jaffee’s
22 Form Interrogatories, Set One, propounded on Defendant Lawton Construction & Restoration, Inc.,
23 dated July 1, 2022;
24 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of Defendant Lawton
25 Construction & Restoration, Inc.’s responses to Plaintiff Nicole Jaffee’s Form Interrogatories, Set
26 One, dated August 3, 2022.
27 ///
28 ///
2
Index Of Exhibits
1 10. Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of Defendant CSAA Insurance
2 Exchange’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, propounded on Plaintiff Morgan Jaffee, dated May 7,
3 2021;
4 11. Attached hereto as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff Morgan Jaffee’s
5 responses to Defendant CSAA Insurance Exchange’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, dated June 28,
6 2021.
7 12. Attached hereto as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of the Certified Homeowners
8 Policy, CAH3105005702, for named insured, Kathleen Jaffee, for loss occurring on or around
9 October 12, 2018.
10 13. Attached hereto as Exhibit M is a true and correct copy of Defendant CSAA
11 Insurance Exchange Request for Production of Documents, Set One, propounded on Plaintiff Nicole
12 Jaffee, dated May 7, 2021;
13 14. Attached hereto as Exhibit N is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff Nicole Jaffee’s
14 responses to Defendant CSAA Insurance Exchange Request for Production of Documents, Set One,
15 dated June 28, 2021.
16 15. Attached hereto as Exhibit O is a true and correct copy of Defendant CSAA
17 Insurance Exchange Form Interrogatories-Construction Litigation, Set One, propounded on Plaintiff
18 Morgan Jaffee, dated December 5, 2022;
19 16. Attached hereto as Exhibit P is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff Morgan Jaffee’s
20 further responses to Defendant CSAA Insurance Exchange s Construction Form Interrogatories, Set
21 One, dated December 8, 2023.
22 17. Attached hereto as Exhibit Q is a true and correct copy of Defendant CSAA
23 Insurance Exchange Form Interrogatories-Construction Litigation, Set One, propounded on Plaintiff
24 Nicole Jaffee, dated December 5, 2022;
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
3
Index Of Exhibits
1 18. Attached hereto as Exhibit R is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff Nicole Jaffee’s
2 further responses to Defendant CSAA Insurance Exchange’s Construction Form Interrogatories, Set
3 One, dated December 8, 2023.
4
5 DATED: March 22, 2024 BERMAN BERMAN BERMAN
SCHNEIDER & LOWARY, LLP
6
7
8
By:______________________________
9 DAVID R. CASADY, ESQ.
ELLEN Y. HUNG, ESQ.
10 ANJOU S. CARY, ESQ.
Attorneys for Defendant,
11 CSAA INSURANCE EXCHANGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Index Of Exhibits
EXHIBIT A
1 Michael G. Miller, Bar No. 136491 ELECTRONICALLY FILED
PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON, Superior Court of California
2 MILLER & MOSKOWITZ, LLP County of Sonoma
438 1st Street, 4th Floor 2/11/2021 11:19 AM
3 Santa Rosa, California 95401 Arlene D. Junior, Clerk of the Court
Telephone: (707) 525-8800 By: Jennifer Ellis, Deputy Clerk
4 Facsimile: (707) 545-8242
Email: miller@perrylaw.net
5
Attorney for Plaintiffs
6 MORGAN JAFFEE and NICOLE JAFFEE
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8 COUNTY OF SONOMA
9 MORGAN JAFFEE and NICOLE Case No. SCV-266409
JAFFEE,
10 [Unlimited Civil]
Plaintiffs,
11 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT for:
v. (1) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good
12 Faith and Fair Dealing;
PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON,
LAWTON CONSTRUCTION AND (2) Negligence;
MILLER & MOSKOWITZ LLP
13 RESTORATION, INC., BRETT (3) Breach of Implied Warranty;
LAWTON; MICHAEL MASSA; CSAA (4) Breach of Contract;
14 INSURANCE EXCHANGE, (5) Fraud;
LIONSBRIDGE CONTRACTOR (6) Conversion; and
15 GROUP, CCA GLOBAL PARTNERS, (7) Breach of Contract against CSAA.
INC. and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
16
Action Filed: May 8, 2020
Defendants. Trial Date: none set
17
18 ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO THE
/ HONORABLE JENNIFER V. DOLLARD
19
20 Plaintiffs Morgan Jaffee and Nicole Jaffee (collectively “Plaintiffs”), by and through
21 their undersigned attorneys, and for their First Amended Complaint allege that:
22 THE PARTIES
23 1. At all times herein mentioned in this Complaint, Plaintiffs, and each of them,
24 were residents of Sonoma County, California.
25 2. Defendant Lawton Construction and Restoration, Inc. is, and at all times
26 mentioned herein was, a corporation doing business in Sonoma County.
27 3. Defendant Brett Lawton is, and at all times mentioned herein was, an individual
28 doing business in Sonoma County.
1
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 4. Defendant Michael Massa is, and at all times mentioned herein was, an
2 individual doing business in Sonoma County. Hereinafter Lawton Construction and
3 Restoration, Inc., Brett Lawton and Michael Massa will collectively be referred to as
4 “Lawton.”
5 5. Defendant CSAA Insurance Exchange (hereinafter “CSAA”) is, and at all times
6 mentioned herein was, a business entity doing business in Sonoma County.
7 6. Defendant Lionsbridge Contractor Group (hereinafter “Lionsbridge”) is, and at
8 all times mentioned herein was, a business entity doing business in Sonoma County and was
9 an agent of Defendant CSAA Insurance Exchange.
10 7. Defendant CCA Global Partners, Inc. (hereinafter “CCA”) is, and at all times
11 mentioned herein was, a business entity doing business in Sonoma County and was an agent of
12 Defendant CSAA Insurance Exchange and/or Defendant Lionsbridge Contractor Group.
PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON,
MILLER & MOSKOWITZ LLP
13 8. Plaintiffs do not currently know the names of DOES 1 through 20 and,
14 therefore, sue said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs allege that each of those
15 defendants is in some way liable and at fault for the occurrences alleged herein, and each
16 defendant is responsible for the damages incurred by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs will amend this
17 Complaint to allege the defendants’ true names and capacities when ascertained.
18 9. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that each defendant
19 designated as a DOE is responsible negligently, intentionally, contractually, or in some other
20 actionable manner for the events and happenings hereinafter referred to, and thereby
21 proximately caused injuries and damages to Plaintiffs as hereinafter alleged, either through
22 said Defendants’ own wrongful conduct or through the conduct of their agents, servants,
23 employees, representatives, officers or attorneys, or due to the ownership, lease or
24 management of the property which is the subject of this litigation, or in some other manner.
25 10. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based on that information and belief
26 allege, that at all times mentioned in this Complaint, each of the defendants and DOE
27 defendants were the agents, servants, employees and joint-ventures of their co-defendants and
28 in doing the things alleged in this complaint were acting within the course and scope of such
2
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 agency, employment, partnership or joint venture and that each and every Defendant ratified
2 the acts of their co-Defendants.
3 11. Defendants CSAA, Lionsbridge, CCA, Lawton, and DOE Defendants 1 through
4 20 shall be hereinafter referred to collectively as “Defendants.”
5 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6 12. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants because they are doing
7 business in the County of Sonoma in the State of California.
8 13. Venue is proper in the County of Sonoma pursuant to California Code of Civil
9 Procedure section 395(a) because all Defendants, or some of them transact business in the
10 County of Sonoma and the injuries alleged herein occurred in said county.
11 ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
12 14. Plaintiffs are the owners and residents of the property commonly known as
PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON,
MILLER & MOSKOWITZ LLP
13 4859 Hoen Avenue, Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, California (hereinafter “the Residence”).
14 Their children Jennifer, 9 years old at the time, and Omar, 14 years old at the time, (hereinafter
15 collectively referred to as “the Children”) also resided at the Residence.
16 15. The Residence was insured by CSAA for the period of October 5, 2018 through
17 October 5, 2019. The insurance policy provided the following coverages: dwelling $593,500;
18 other structures $59,300; personal property $445,200; and loss of use $237,600 (hereinafter
19 “the Policy”). Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Policy.
20 16. The Policy named Kathleen Jaffee, Morgan Jaffee’s mother who also resided
21 and owned the Residence during the relevant time period as the named insured. The Policy
22 defined “Insured” as Kathleen Jaffee and her relatives who resided in her household. Plaintiffs
23 are the son and daughter-in-law of Kathleen Jaffee and resided with her in the Residence.
24 Plaintiffs are, therefore, insured under the Policy during the relevant time period.
25 17. On or around October 17, 2018, Plaintiffs discovered that the hardwood in their
26 kitchen in front of the dishwasher was buckling and suspected that there was water damage
27 from their dishwasher.
28 18. On or around October 18, 2018, Plaintiffs reported the loss to CSAA.
3
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 19. On or around October 23, 2018, CSAA sent Lawton, a CSAA preferred vendor,
2 to inspect the house. Thereafter, Lawton closed off the kitchen with plastic covering and
3 instructed Plaintiffs they were not to enter the kitchen. Lawton advised Plaintiffs that it would
4 complete its work within one month.
5 20. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant CSAA
6 contracted with Lawton to furnish all materials and perform all labor necessary to perform
7 remediation and repair work for the damages caused by the water leak in the Residence.
8 21. On or around October 30, 2018, Lawton started cleaning and decontaminating
9 the water damage, which required a containment zone that blocked Plaintiffs’ access to the
10 entire kitchen.
11 22. Lawton then began remediation and repair work. During said work, Lawton
12 moved Plaintiffs’ Subzero refrigerator from the kitchen to the dining area by dragging it across
PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON,
MILLER & MOSKOWITZ LLP
13 the hardwood floor, causing extensive damage to the hardwood floor between the kitchen and
14 the dining area. The damage to the hardwood floor required extensive sanding down of
15 multiple layers of the entire surface of hardwood which covered the vast majority of the first
16 floor. The damage to the floor has caused a depreciation in the Residence’s value.
17 23. Lawton also removed all of the cabinetry throughout the kitchen. The kitchen
18 had recently been remodeled with high-end wood cabinetry throughout the kitchen. Lawton
19 refused to return most of the cabinetry and instead replaced it with substandard materials.
20 24. Lawton also removed all of the solid wood toe kicks and replaced them with
21 substandard materials which were installed improperly.
22 25. In or around November 2018, Defendants packed up all of Plaintiffs’ personal
23 belongings from the kitchen, breakfast nook, dining room and front entry way, including all
24 items needed for cooking, serving and storing food and all furniture, and placed everything in
25 Plaintiffs’ garage. Plaintiffs’ entire garage was filled with items and was unusable. Plaintiffs’
26 ovens were removed from the kitchen and stored in the breakfast nook. Plaintiffs’ refrigerator
27 was stored first in the breakfast nook and later in the living room. It was placed on wooden
28 planks and stood untethered; it was extremely hazardous. Plaintiffs instructed the Children not
4
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 to use the refrigerator due to it being unsafe. Plaintiffs had no way of cooking or serving food.
2 The water was turned off to the kitchen and the kitchen sinks were covered, so Plaintiffs had
3 nowhere to wash dishes.
4 26. Plastic covered the ceiling throughout the downstairs, the opening to the living
5 room, the den, the garage and the stairs leading to the bedrooms upstairs. It was a tripping
6 hazard.
7 27. Given the inability to cook or serve food and the hazards throughout the entire
8 downstairs for Plaintiffs, including the Children, Plaintiffs decided that Nicole Jaffee and the
9 Children would need to move to an apartment nearby, which they did. Plaintiffs incurred
10 moving costs and were forced to purchase new furniture and housewares. Plaintiffs had to pay
11 rent for the apartment and the mortgage on the Residence as well as utilities for both.
12 Plaintiffs also had to purchase rental insurance for the apartment.
PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON,
MILLER & MOSKOWITZ LLP
13 28. Kathleen Jaffee was elderly and had memory issues, which precluded her
14 moving. Morgan Jaffee had to remain in the Residence with his mother. He was only able to
15 see his wife and the Children occasionally.
16 29. Defendants caused numerous delays in the process including but not limited to
17 not responding to requests for updates in a timely manner and Lawton failing to appear at the
18 Residence for days at a time.
19 30. On or around March 10, 2019, Lawton abandoned the job and refused the
20 return. Plaintiffs contacted CSAA and demanded that Lawton or another vendor complete the
21 repairs. CSAA said it would no longer assist with remedying the damages caused by Lawton.
22 31. Following several attempts to reach an agreement, Lawton, CCA and CSAA
23 agreed to continue repairs.
24 32. Thereafter, Lawton caused additional damages to the Residence. Defendants
25 again promised Plaintiffs that they would remedy the damages they caused.
26 33. On or around April 13, 2019, Plaintiffs found a new leak under one of the
27 kitchen sinks. Plaintiffs hired their own contractor to inspect the Residence for water damage
28 and it was found there was water damage caused by improper installation of water pipes under
5
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 the kitchen sink through the flooring and into the crawl space under the kitchen. There was
2 evidence that Lawton had installed insulation over the leak, demonstrating their knowledge of
3 and attempts to hide the further damage Lawton caused to the Residence. Defendants again
4 promised Plaintiffs they would fix the damages caused.
5 34. Lawton and their agents failed to perform their obligations in a workmanlike
6 manner. Said failures include, but are not limited to, the following: damaging carpeting in the
7 dining room, damaging the walls and ceiling throughout the entire downstairs, removing paint
8 and further damage to the floors and baseboards, failing to return all of the items taken from
9 Plaintiffs’ Residence, including but not limited to cabinetry, appliance components and
10 hardware, damages to the refrigerator, improper installation of appliances and damaging
11 Plaintiffs’ antique hutch.
12 35. On or around May 14, 2019, Nicole Jaffee met with Lawton at the Residence,
PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON,
MILLER & MOSKOWITZ LLP
13 pointing out the damages caused by Lawton that it had failed to remedy. Lawton advised that
14 it would do nothing more to repair the damages it caused to the Residence and it has refused
15 and continued to refuse to complete the work it agreed to perform in repairing the Residence.
16 36. On or around June 24, 2019, Ms. Jaffee and the Children were finally able to
17 return to the Residence.
18 37. Plaintiffs have continued to find new defects caused by Lawton including but
19 not limited to the refrigerator and the ovens being improperly installed, causing electrical
20 issues including power surges and loss of power and the voiding of the appliances’ warranties;
21 water damage; and damages to flooring, cabinetry, walls and ceiling.
22 38. Subcontractors were required to be licensed and professionally competent.
23 Defendants lied, concealed and otherwise misled Plaintiffs regarding the licensing and
24 competency of their subcontractors.
25 39. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that repair, remediation
26 and possible replacement is necessary to cure the defective conditions identified herein.
27 ///
28 ///
6
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
2 Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing – Against Defendants CSAA
3 Insurance Exchange, Lionsbridge, CCA and Does 1-20
4 40. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference each and every
5 allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 39, inclusive, of this Complaint, as though fully
6 set forth herein.
7 41. CSAA, Lionsbridge and CCA breached the implied covenant by, inter alia,
8 acting unreasonably in the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim regarding their home; foisting Lawton
9 on Plaintiff when CSAA, Lionsbridge and CCA knew or should have known that Lawton
10 would damage Plaintiffs’ home; unreasonably refusing to pay benefits due under the Policy;
11 failing to promptly communicate with Plaintiffs; failing to follow claims standards imposed by
12 law; and refusing to pay policy benefits necessary for Plaintiffs’ living expenses at a time
PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON,
MILLER & MOSKOWITZ LLP
13 when CSAA, Lionsbridge and CCA knew or should have known Plaintiffs needed the money
14 or would suffer hardship if they did not receive prompt payment and to reimburse Plaintiffs for
15 the damage to their Residence.
16 42. As a proximate result of the conduct of CSAA, Lionsbridge and CCA Plaintiffs
17 suffered and continue to suffer damages, including loss of personal property, devaluation of
18 their Residence, moving costs and extreme mental anguish and emotional and physical
19 distress, all to their general damage, in an amount to be determined at the time of trial.
20 43. In refusing to provide Plaintiffs with benefits under the Policy, especially in
21 light of the fact that the damage to the Residence was caused by CSAA’s preferred vendor and
22 caused the Residence to be uninhabitable, CSAA acted in malicious, despicable, willful and
23 conscious disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights and subjected Plaintiffs to cruel and unjust hardship.
24 Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to recover exemplary damages.
25 44. Also as proximate result of the conduct of CSAA, Lionsbridge and CCA,
26 Plaintiffs were required to hire attorneys and have incurred their fees to obtain the benefits due
27 under the Policy. Plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees in an
28 amount to be proven at trial.
7
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
2 Negligence – Against all Defendants
3 44. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference each and every
4 allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 43, inclusive, of this Complaint, as though fully
5 set forth herein.
6 45. Defendants Lawton, Lionsbridge and CCA, and each of them, named herein
7 were under a duty to exercise ordinary care as builder, contractor, subcontractor, supplier, or
8 otherwise to avoid reasonably foreseeable injury to users of the Residence, and knew or should
9 have foreseen with reasonable certainty that Plaintiffs would suffer the monetary damages set
10 forth herein if said Defendants, and each of them, failed to perform their duty to cause the
11 Residence to be designed, engineered and completed in a proper and workmanlike manner and
12 fashion.
PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON,
MILLER & MOSKOWITZ LLP
13 46. After Plaintiffs reported the loss to CSAA, CSAA selected, retained and
14 directed Lawton to visit the Residence to investigate, analyze and remedy the damage to the
15 Residence caused by the water intrusion. Thereafter, CSAA directed and supervised Lawton,
16 oversaw and directed all services Lawton performed at the Residence and paid Lawton for all
17 work performed. All services Lawton performed at the Residence were at the direction of
18 CSAA. Lawton reported director to CSAA and CSAA made all decisions regarding which
19 services were provided, which subcontractors and materials were used. At no time did
20 Plaintiffs direct, retain, instruct, oversee or pay Lawton for any services provided. As such, at
21 all relevant times, Lawton acted as CSAA’s agent for all purposes regarding all work
22 performed at the Residence.
23 47. Plaintiffs are informed believe and thereon allege Defendants Lawton,
24 Lionsbridge and CCA, and each of them, negligently, carelessly, tortiously, and wrongfully
25 failed to use reasonable care in the analysis and preparation of the Residence and in the design,
26 manufacture, construction, and installation of the components and systems of the Residence.
27 48. In performing the works of a builder and/or contractor, subcontractor, supplier,
28 materialman, product manufacturer, design professional or otherwise, Defendants Lawton,
8
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 Lionsbridge and CCA, and each of them, acting as agents on behalf of and at the request of
2 CSAA, failed and neglected to perform the work, labor and services properly or adequately in
3 that each of Defendants Lawton, Lionsbridge and CCA, acting as agents on behalf of and at
4 the request of CSAA, so negligently, carelessly and in an unworkmanlike manner performed
5 the aforesaid work, labor and/or services such that the Residence as described herein was
6 designed, engineered, and/or constructed improperly, negligently, carelessly and/or in an
7 unworkmanlike manner. Further, Defendants Lawton, Lionsbridge and CCA and each of
8 them, acting as agents on behalf of and at the request of CSAA, knew or should have known
9 that the Residence was constructed in an unworkmanlike manner.
10 49. CSAA directed and authorized Lawton to perform the aforementioned tortious
11 acts and ratified any conduct that was not originally authorized.
12 50. As a direct and proximate result of negligence, carelessness and unworkmanlike
PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON,
MILLER & MOSKOWITZ LLP
13 conduct, actions and/or omissions by Defendants Lawton, Lionsbridge and CCA, and each of
14 them, acting as agents on behalf of and at the request of CSAA, the Residence and its
15 components were constructed defectively, and as a proximate and foreseeable result of said
16 defective construction, Plaintiffs have been damaged, including diminution of the Residence’s
17 value, property damage, economic loss, and the need to perform works of repair, restoration,
18 and construction to portions of the Residence to prevent further damages and to restore the
19 Residence to its proper condition.
20 51. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the Residence may
21 be additionally defective in ways and to extents not precisely known, but which will be
22 inserted herein by way of amendment or will be established at the time of trial, according to
23 proof.
24 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
25 Breach of Implied Warranty – Against Lawton, Lionsbridge, CCA and Does 1-20
26 52. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference each and every
27 allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 51, inclusive, of this Complaint, as though fully
28 set forth herein.
9
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 53. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Lawton, acting as the
2 agent of Lionsbridge and CCA, impliedly warranted that the remediation and repair work it
3 performed on the Residence, and the component parts and materials used therein, was
4 designed and constructed in a reasonably workmanlike manner and that said products were of
5 merchantable quality and safe and fit for their foreseeable or intended use.
6 54. Lawton, acting as the agent of Lionsbridge and CCA, knew that the work it
7 performed on the Residence was defective for all the reasons set forth herein.
8 55. Lawton, acting as the agent of Lionsbridge and CCA, knew or had reason to
9 know that Plaintiffs would rely upon the skill and judgment of Lawton, Lionsbridge and CCA
10 in the work Lawton performed on the Residence in providing component products and systems
11 fit for their particular purposes as described herein.
12 56. Lawton, Lionsbridge and CCA impliedly warranted that the aforementioned
PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON,
MILLER & MOSKOWITZ LLP
13 components, which were installed at the Residence, would be fit for the particular purposes as
14 alleged above.
15 57. The Residence was not fit for said purposes but in fact failed as alleged above.
16 58. As a proximate and direct result of the breach of such implied warranties,
17 Plaintiffs have sustained and will sustain damages.
18 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
19 Breach of Contract - Against Lawton, Lionsbridge, CCA and Does 1-20
20 59. Plai
Preview
1 David R. Casady, Esq. (SBN: 273282) Ellen Y. Hung, Esq. (SBN: 216821) 2 Anjou S. Cary, Esq. (SBN: 283116) BERMAN BERMAN BERMAN 3 SCHNEIDER & LOWARY, LLP 2390 Professional Drive 4 Roseville, CA 95661 Telephone: (916) 846-9391 5 Facsimile: (916) 672-9290 E-Mail: drcasady@b3law.com; eyhung@b3law.com; ascary@b3law.com 6 Attorneys for Defendant, CSAA INSURANCE EXCHANGE 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA – CIVIL DIVISION 10 11 MORGAN JAFFEE AND NICOLE JAFFEE, ) CASE NO. SCV-266409 ) 12 Plaintiffs, ) Assigned for All Purposes to: ) Hon. Christopher Honigsberg – Dept. 18 13 v. ) ) DEFENDANT CSAA INSURANCE 14 LAWTON CONSTRUCTION AND ) EXCHANGE’S INDEX OF EXHIBITS IN RESOTRATION, INC., BRETT LAWTON, ) SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY 15 MICHAEL MASSA, CSAA INSURANCE ) JUDGMENT EXCHANGE, LIONSBRIDGE ) 16 CONTRACTOR GROUP, and DOES 1 to 20, ) [filed concurrently with Notice of Motion & ) Motion for Summary Judgment; Separate 17 Defendants. ) Statement of Undisputed Material Facts; ) Declaration of Anjou S. Cary; Declaration of 18 ) Lindsay San Martin; and (Proposed) Order ) thereon] 19 ) ) Complaint Filed: May 8, 2020 20 ) Trial Date: July 12, 2024 ) 21 ) Date: ) Time: 22 ) Dept: ) 23 24 Defendant CSAA INSURANCE EXCHANGE hereby submits its Index of Exhibits in 25 Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication, as 26 follows: 27 /// 28 /// 1 Index Of Exhibits 1 1. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ First Amended 2 Complaint filed February 11, 2021; 3 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff Nicole Jaffee’s 4 Request for Production, Set One, propounded on Defendant Lawton Construction & Restoration, 5 Inc., dated July 1, 2022; 6 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of Defendant Lawton 7 Construction & Restoration, Inc.’s responses to Plaintiff Nicole Jaffee’s Request for Production, Set 8 One, dated August 3, 2022. 9 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff Nicole Jaffee’s 10 Request for Admissions, Set One, propounded on Defendant Lawton Construction & Restoration, 11 Inc., dated July 1, 2022; 12 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of Defendant Lawton 13 Construction & Restoration, Inc.’s responses to Plaintiff Nicole Jaffee’s Request for Admissions, Set 14 One, dated August 3, 2022; 15 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff Nicole Jaffee’s 16 Special Interrogatories, Set One, propounded on Defendant Lawton Construction & Restoration, 17 Inc., dated July 1, 2022; 18 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of Defendant Lawton 19 Construction & Restoration, Inc.’s responses to Plaintiff Nicole Jaffee’s Special Interrogatories, Set 20 One, dated August 4, 2022. 21 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff Nicole Jaffee’s 22 Form Interrogatories, Set One, propounded on Defendant Lawton Construction & Restoration, Inc., 23 dated July 1, 2022; 24 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of Defendant Lawton 25 Construction & Restoration, Inc.’s responses to Plaintiff Nicole Jaffee’s Form Interrogatories, Set 26 One, dated August 3, 2022. 27 /// 28 /// 2 Index Of Exhibits 1 10. Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of Defendant CSAA Insurance 2 Exchange’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, propounded on Plaintiff Morgan Jaffee, dated May 7, 3 2021; 4 11. Attached hereto as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff Morgan Jaffee’s 5 responses to Defendant CSAA Insurance Exchange’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, dated June 28, 6 2021. 7 12. Attached hereto as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of the Certified Homeowners 8 Policy, CAH3105005702, for named insured, Kathleen Jaffee, for loss occurring on or around 9 October 12, 2018. 10 13. Attached hereto as Exhibit M is a true and correct copy of Defendant CSAA 11 Insurance Exchange Request for Production of Documents, Set One, propounded on Plaintiff Nicole 12 Jaffee, dated May 7, 2021; 13 14. Attached hereto as Exhibit N is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff Nicole Jaffee’s 14 responses to Defendant CSAA Insurance Exchange Request for Production of Documents, Set One, 15 dated June 28, 2021. 16 15. Attached hereto as Exhibit O is a true and correct copy of Defendant CSAA 17 Insurance Exchange Form Interrogatories-Construction Litigation, Set One, propounded on Plaintiff 18 Morgan Jaffee, dated December 5, 2022; 19 16. Attached hereto as Exhibit P is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff Morgan Jaffee’s 20 further responses to Defendant CSAA Insurance Exchange s Construction Form Interrogatories, Set 21 One, dated December 8, 2023. 22 17. Attached hereto as Exhibit Q is a true and correct copy of Defendant CSAA 23 Insurance Exchange Form Interrogatories-Construction Litigation, Set One, propounded on Plaintiff 24 Nicole Jaffee, dated December 5, 2022; 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 3 Index Of Exhibits 1 18. Attached hereto as Exhibit R is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff Nicole Jaffee’s 2 further responses to Defendant CSAA Insurance Exchange’s Construction Form Interrogatories, Set 3 One, dated December 8, 2023. 4 5 DATED: March 22, 2024 BERMAN BERMAN BERMAN SCHNEIDER & LOWARY, LLP 6 7 8 By:______________________________ 9 DAVID R. CASADY, ESQ. ELLEN Y. HUNG, ESQ. 10 ANJOU S. CARY, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendant, 11 CSAA INSURANCE EXCHANGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 Index Of Exhibits EXHIBIT A 1 Michael G. Miller, Bar No. 136491 ELECTRONICALLY FILED PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON, Superior Court of California 2 MILLER & MOSKOWITZ, LLP County of Sonoma 438 1st Street, 4th Floor 2/11/2021 11:19 AM 3 Santa Rosa, California 95401 Arlene D. Junior, Clerk of the Court Telephone: (707) 525-8800 By: Jennifer Ellis, Deputy Clerk 4 Facsimile: (707) 545-8242 Email: miller@perrylaw.net 5 Attorney for Plaintiffs 6 MORGAN JAFFEE and NICOLE JAFFEE 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF SONOMA 9 MORGAN JAFFEE and NICOLE Case No. SCV-266409 JAFFEE, 10 [Unlimited Civil] Plaintiffs, 11 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT for: v. (1) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good 12 Faith and Fair Dealing; PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON, LAWTON CONSTRUCTION AND (2) Negligence; MILLER & MOSKOWITZ LLP 13 RESTORATION, INC., BRETT (3) Breach of Implied Warranty; LAWTON; MICHAEL MASSA; CSAA (4) Breach of Contract; 14 INSURANCE EXCHANGE, (5) Fraud; LIONSBRIDGE CONTRACTOR (6) Conversion; and 15 GROUP, CCA GLOBAL PARTNERS, (7) Breach of Contract against CSAA. INC. and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, 16 Action Filed: May 8, 2020 Defendants. Trial Date: none set 17 18 ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO THE / HONORABLE JENNIFER V. DOLLARD 19 20 Plaintiffs Morgan Jaffee and Nicole Jaffee (collectively “Plaintiffs”), by and through 21 their undersigned attorneys, and for their First Amended Complaint allege that: 22 THE PARTIES 23 1. At all times herein mentioned in this Complaint, Plaintiffs, and each of them, 24 were residents of Sonoma County, California. 25 2. Defendant Lawton Construction and Restoration, Inc. is, and at all times 26 mentioned herein was, a corporation doing business in Sonoma County. 27 3. Defendant Brett Lawton is, and at all times mentioned herein was, an individual 28 doing business in Sonoma County. 1 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 4. Defendant Michael Massa is, and at all times mentioned herein was, an 2 individual doing business in Sonoma County. Hereinafter Lawton Construction and 3 Restoration, Inc., Brett Lawton and Michael Massa will collectively be referred to as 4 “Lawton.” 5 5. Defendant CSAA Insurance Exchange (hereinafter “CSAA”) is, and at all times 6 mentioned herein was, a business entity doing business in Sonoma County. 7 6. Defendant Lionsbridge Contractor Group (hereinafter “Lionsbridge”) is, and at 8 all times mentioned herein was, a business entity doing business in Sonoma County and was 9 an agent of Defendant CSAA Insurance Exchange. 10 7. Defendant CCA Global Partners, Inc. (hereinafter “CCA”) is, and at all times 11 mentioned herein was, a business entity doing business in Sonoma County and was an agent of 12 Defendant CSAA Insurance Exchange and/or Defendant Lionsbridge Contractor Group. PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON, MILLER & MOSKOWITZ LLP 13 8. Plaintiffs do not currently know the names of DOES 1 through 20 and, 14 therefore, sue said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs allege that each of those 15 defendants is in some way liable and at fault for the occurrences alleged herein, and each 16 defendant is responsible for the damages incurred by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs will amend this 17 Complaint to allege the defendants’ true names and capacities when ascertained. 18 9. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that each defendant 19 designated as a DOE is responsible negligently, intentionally, contractually, or in some other 20 actionable manner for the events and happenings hereinafter referred to, and thereby 21 proximately caused injuries and damages to Plaintiffs as hereinafter alleged, either through 22 said Defendants’ own wrongful conduct or through the conduct of their agents, servants, 23 employees, representatives, officers or attorneys, or due to the ownership, lease or 24 management of the property which is the subject of this litigation, or in some other manner. 25 10. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based on that information and belief 26 allege, that at all times mentioned in this Complaint, each of the defendants and DOE 27 defendants were the agents, servants, employees and joint-ventures of their co-defendants and 28 in doing the things alleged in this complaint were acting within the course and scope of such 2 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 agency, employment, partnership or joint venture and that each and every Defendant ratified 2 the acts of their co-Defendants. 3 11. Defendants CSAA, Lionsbridge, CCA, Lawton, and DOE Defendants 1 through 4 20 shall be hereinafter referred to collectively as “Defendants.” 5 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6 12. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants because they are doing 7 business in the County of Sonoma in the State of California. 8 13. Venue is proper in the County of Sonoma pursuant to California Code of Civil 9 Procedure section 395(a) because all Defendants, or some of them transact business in the 10 County of Sonoma and the injuries alleged herein occurred in said county. 11 ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 12 14. Plaintiffs are the owners and residents of the property commonly known as PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON, MILLER & MOSKOWITZ LLP 13 4859 Hoen Avenue, Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, California (hereinafter “the Residence”). 14 Their children Jennifer, 9 years old at the time, and Omar, 14 years old at the time, (hereinafter 15 collectively referred to as “the Children”) also resided at the Residence. 16 15. The Residence was insured by CSAA for the period of October 5, 2018 through 17 October 5, 2019. The insurance policy provided the following coverages: dwelling $593,500; 18 other structures $59,300; personal property $445,200; and loss of use $237,600 (hereinafter 19 “the Policy”). Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Policy. 20 16. The Policy named Kathleen Jaffee, Morgan Jaffee’s mother who also resided 21 and owned the Residence during the relevant time period as the named insured. The Policy 22 defined “Insured” as Kathleen Jaffee and her relatives who resided in her household. Plaintiffs 23 are the son and daughter-in-law of Kathleen Jaffee and resided with her in the Residence. 24 Plaintiffs are, therefore, insured under the Policy during the relevant time period. 25 17. On or around October 17, 2018, Plaintiffs discovered that the hardwood in their 26 kitchen in front of the dishwasher was buckling and suspected that there was water damage 27 from their dishwasher. 28 18. On or around October 18, 2018, Plaintiffs reported the loss to CSAA. 3 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 19. On or around October 23, 2018, CSAA sent Lawton, a CSAA preferred vendor, 2 to inspect the house. Thereafter, Lawton closed off the kitchen with plastic covering and 3 instructed Plaintiffs they were not to enter the kitchen. Lawton advised Plaintiffs that it would 4 complete its work within one month. 5 20. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant CSAA 6 contracted with Lawton to furnish all materials and perform all labor necessary to perform 7 remediation and repair work for the damages caused by the water leak in the Residence. 8 21. On or around October 30, 2018, Lawton started cleaning and decontaminating 9 the water damage, which required a containment zone that blocked Plaintiffs’ access to the 10 entire kitchen. 11 22. Lawton then began remediation and repair work. During said work, Lawton 12 moved Plaintiffs’ Subzero refrigerator from the kitchen to the dining area by dragging it across PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON, MILLER & MOSKOWITZ LLP 13 the hardwood floor, causing extensive damage to the hardwood floor between the kitchen and 14 the dining area. The damage to the hardwood floor required extensive sanding down of 15 multiple layers of the entire surface of hardwood which covered the vast majority of the first 16 floor. The damage to the floor has caused a depreciation in the Residence’s value. 17 23. Lawton also removed all of the cabinetry throughout the kitchen. The kitchen 18 had recently been remodeled with high-end wood cabinetry throughout the kitchen. Lawton 19 refused to return most of the cabinetry and instead replaced it with substandard materials. 20 24. Lawton also removed all of the solid wood toe kicks and replaced them with 21 substandard materials which were installed improperly. 22 25. In or around November 2018, Defendants packed up all of Plaintiffs’ personal 23 belongings from the kitchen, breakfast nook, dining room and front entry way, including all 24 items needed for cooking, serving and storing food and all furniture, and placed everything in 25 Plaintiffs’ garage. Plaintiffs’ entire garage was filled with items and was unusable. Plaintiffs’ 26 ovens were removed from the kitchen and stored in the breakfast nook. Plaintiffs’ refrigerator 27 was stored first in the breakfast nook and later in the living room. It was placed on wooden 28 planks and stood untethered; it was extremely hazardous. Plaintiffs instructed the Children not 4 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 to use the refrigerator due to it being unsafe. Plaintiffs had no way of cooking or serving food. 2 The water was turned off to the kitchen and the kitchen sinks were covered, so Plaintiffs had 3 nowhere to wash dishes. 4 26. Plastic covered the ceiling throughout the downstairs, the opening to the living 5 room, the den, the garage and the stairs leading to the bedrooms upstairs. It was a tripping 6 hazard. 7 27. Given the inability to cook or serve food and the hazards throughout the entire 8 downstairs for Plaintiffs, including the Children, Plaintiffs decided that Nicole Jaffee and the 9 Children would need to move to an apartment nearby, which they did. Plaintiffs incurred 10 moving costs and were forced to purchase new furniture and housewares. Plaintiffs had to pay 11 rent for the apartment and the mortgage on the Residence as well as utilities for both. 12 Plaintiffs also had to purchase rental insurance for the apartment. PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON, MILLER & MOSKOWITZ LLP 13 28. Kathleen Jaffee was elderly and had memory issues, which precluded her 14 moving. Morgan Jaffee had to remain in the Residence with his mother. He was only able to 15 see his wife and the Children occasionally. 16 29. Defendants caused numerous delays in the process including but not limited to 17 not responding to requests for updates in a timely manner and Lawton failing to appear at the 18 Residence for days at a time. 19 30. On or around March 10, 2019, Lawton abandoned the job and refused the 20 return. Plaintiffs contacted CSAA and demanded that Lawton or another vendor complete the 21 repairs. CSAA said it would no longer assist with remedying the damages caused by Lawton. 22 31. Following several attempts to reach an agreement, Lawton, CCA and CSAA 23 agreed to continue repairs. 24 32. Thereafter, Lawton caused additional damages to the Residence. Defendants 25 again promised Plaintiffs that they would remedy the damages they caused. 26 33. On or around April 13, 2019, Plaintiffs found a new leak under one of the 27 kitchen sinks. Plaintiffs hired their own contractor to inspect the Residence for water damage 28 and it was found there was water damage caused by improper installation of water pipes under 5 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 the kitchen sink through the flooring and into the crawl space under the kitchen. There was 2 evidence that Lawton had installed insulation over the leak, demonstrating their knowledge of 3 and attempts to hide the further damage Lawton caused to the Residence. Defendants again 4 promised Plaintiffs they would fix the damages caused. 5 34. Lawton and their agents failed to perform their obligations in a workmanlike 6 manner. Said failures include, but are not limited to, the following: damaging carpeting in the 7 dining room, damaging the walls and ceiling throughout the entire downstairs, removing paint 8 and further damage to the floors and baseboards, failing to return all of the items taken from 9 Plaintiffs’ Residence, including but not limited to cabinetry, appliance components and 10 hardware, damages to the refrigerator, improper installation of appliances and damaging 11 Plaintiffs’ antique hutch. 12 35. On or around May 14, 2019, Nicole Jaffee met with Lawton at the Residence, PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON, MILLER & MOSKOWITZ LLP 13 pointing out the damages caused by Lawton that it had failed to remedy. Lawton advised that 14 it would do nothing more to repair the damages it caused to the Residence and it has refused 15 and continued to refuse to complete the work it agreed to perform in repairing the Residence. 16 36. On or around June 24, 2019, Ms. Jaffee and the Children were finally able to 17 return to the Residence. 18 37. Plaintiffs have continued to find new defects caused by Lawton including but 19 not limited to the refrigerator and the ovens being improperly installed, causing electrical 20 issues including power surges and loss of power and the voiding of the appliances’ warranties; 21 water damage; and damages to flooring, cabinetry, walls and ceiling. 22 38. Subcontractors were required to be licensed and professionally competent. 23 Defendants lied, concealed and otherwise misled Plaintiffs regarding the licensing and 24 competency of their subcontractors. 25 39. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that repair, remediation 26 and possible replacement is necessary to cure the defective conditions identified herein. 27 /// 28 /// 6 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 2 Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing – Against Defendants CSAA 3 Insurance Exchange, Lionsbridge, CCA and Does 1-20 4 40. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference each and every 5 allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 39, inclusive, of this Complaint, as though fully 6 set forth herein. 7 41. CSAA, Lionsbridge and CCA breached the implied covenant by, inter alia, 8 acting unreasonably in the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim regarding their home; foisting Lawton 9 on Plaintiff when CSAA, Lionsbridge and CCA knew or should have known that Lawton 10 would damage Plaintiffs’ home; unreasonably refusing to pay benefits due under the Policy; 11 failing to promptly communicate with Plaintiffs; failing to follow claims standards imposed by 12 law; and refusing to pay policy benefits necessary for Plaintiffs’ living expenses at a time PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON, MILLER & MOSKOWITZ LLP 13 when CSAA, Lionsbridge and CCA knew or should have known Plaintiffs needed the money 14 or would suffer hardship if they did not receive prompt payment and to reimburse Plaintiffs for 15 the damage to their Residence. 16 42. As a proximate result of the conduct of CSAA, Lionsbridge and CCA Plaintiffs 17 suffered and continue to suffer damages, including loss of personal property, devaluation of 18 their Residence, moving costs and extreme mental anguish and emotional and physical 19 distress, all to their general damage, in an amount to be determined at the time of trial. 20 43. In refusing to provide Plaintiffs with benefits under the Policy, especially in 21 light of the fact that the damage to the Residence was caused by CSAA’s preferred vendor and 22 caused the Residence to be uninhabitable, CSAA acted in malicious, despicable, willful and 23 conscious disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights and subjected Plaintiffs to cruel and unjust hardship. 24 Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to recover exemplary damages. 25 44. Also as proximate result of the conduct of CSAA, Lionsbridge and CCA, 26 Plaintiffs were required to hire attorneys and have incurred their fees to obtain the benefits due 27 under the Policy. Plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees in an 28 amount to be proven at trial. 7 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 2 Negligence – Against all Defendants 3 44. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference each and every 4 allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 43, inclusive, of this Complaint, as though fully 5 set forth herein. 6 45. Defendants Lawton, Lionsbridge and CCA, and each of them, named herein 7 were under a duty to exercise ordinary care as builder, contractor, subcontractor, supplier, or 8 otherwise to avoid reasonably foreseeable injury to users of the Residence, and knew or should 9 have foreseen with reasonable certainty that Plaintiffs would suffer the monetary damages set 10 forth herein if said Defendants, and each of them, failed to perform their duty to cause the 11 Residence to be designed, engineered and completed in a proper and workmanlike manner and 12 fashion. PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON, MILLER & MOSKOWITZ LLP 13 46. After Plaintiffs reported the loss to CSAA, CSAA selected, retained and 14 directed Lawton to visit the Residence to investigate, analyze and remedy the damage to the 15 Residence caused by the water intrusion. Thereafter, CSAA directed and supervised Lawton, 16 oversaw and directed all services Lawton performed at the Residence and paid Lawton for all 17 work performed. All services Lawton performed at the Residence were at the direction of 18 CSAA. Lawton reported director to CSAA and CSAA made all decisions regarding which 19 services were provided, which subcontractors and materials were used. At no time did 20 Plaintiffs direct, retain, instruct, oversee or pay Lawton for any services provided. As such, at 21 all relevant times, Lawton acted as CSAA’s agent for all purposes regarding all work 22 performed at the Residence. 23 47. Plaintiffs are informed believe and thereon allege Defendants Lawton, 24 Lionsbridge and CCA, and each of them, negligently, carelessly, tortiously, and wrongfully 25 failed to use reasonable care in the analysis and preparation of the Residence and in the design, 26 manufacture, construction, and installation of the components and systems of the Residence. 27 48. In performing the works of a builder and/or contractor, subcontractor, supplier, 28 materialman, product manufacturer, design professional or otherwise, Defendants Lawton, 8 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 Lionsbridge and CCA, and each of them, acting as agents on behalf of and at the request of 2 CSAA, failed and neglected to perform the work, labor and services properly or adequately in 3 that each of Defendants Lawton, Lionsbridge and CCA, acting as agents on behalf of and at 4 the request of CSAA, so negligently, carelessly and in an unworkmanlike manner performed 5 the aforesaid work, labor and/or services such that the Residence as described herein was 6 designed, engineered, and/or constructed improperly, negligently, carelessly and/or in an 7 unworkmanlike manner. Further, Defendants Lawton, Lionsbridge and CCA and each of 8 them, acting as agents on behalf of and at the request of CSAA, knew or should have known 9 that the Residence was constructed in an unworkmanlike manner. 10 49. CSAA directed and authorized Lawton to perform the aforementioned tortious 11 acts and ratified any conduct that was not originally authorized. 12 50. As a direct and proximate result of negligence, carelessness and unworkmanlike PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON, MILLER & MOSKOWITZ LLP 13 conduct, actions and/or omissions by Defendants Lawton, Lionsbridge and CCA, and each of 14 them, acting as agents on behalf of and at the request of CSAA, the Residence and its 15 components were constructed defectively, and as a proximate and foreseeable result of said 16 defective construction, Plaintiffs have been damaged, including diminution of the Residence’s 17 value, property damage, economic loss, and the need to perform works of repair, restoration, 18 and construction to portions of the Residence to prevent further damages and to restore the 19 Residence to its proper condition. 20 51. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the Residence may 21 be additionally defective in ways and to extents not precisely known, but which will be 22 inserted herein by way of amendment or will be established at the time of trial, according to 23 proof. 24 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 25 Breach of Implied Warranty – Against Lawton, Lionsbridge, CCA and Does 1-20 26 52. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference each and every 27 allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 51, inclusive, of this Complaint, as though fully 28 set forth herein. 9 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 53. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Lawton, acting as the 2 agent of Lionsbridge and CCA, impliedly warranted that the remediation and repair work it 3 performed on the Residence, and the component parts and materials used therein, was 4 designed and constructed in a reasonably workmanlike manner and that said products were of 5 merchantable quality and safe and fit for their foreseeable or intended use. 6 54. Lawton, acting as the agent of Lionsbridge and CCA, knew that the work it 7 performed on the Residence was defective for all the reasons set forth herein. 8 55. Lawton, acting as the agent of Lionsbridge and CCA, knew or had reason to 9 know that Plaintiffs would rely upon the skill and judgment of Lawton, Lionsbridge and CCA 10 in the work Lawton performed on the Residence in providing component products and systems 11 fit for their particular purposes as described herein. 12 56. Lawton, Lionsbridge and CCA impliedly warranted that the aforementioned PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON, MILLER & MOSKOWITZ LLP 13 components, which were installed at the Residence, would be fit for the particular purposes as 14 alleged above. 15 57. The Residence was not fit for said purposes but in fact failed as alleged above. 16 58. As a proximate and direct result of the breach of such implied warranties, 17 Plaintiffs have sustained and will sustain damages. 18 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 19 Breach of Contract - Against Lawton, Lionsbridge, CCA and Does 1-20 20 59. Plai