Court Allows Contractor to Testify to Needed Repairs for Mold

[Guest guest]

Article from IEQ Review

(_http://www.imakenews.com/pureaircontrols/e_article001063811.cfm?x=bcrjnQG,bsr9\

CFP_

(http://www.imakenews.com/pureaircontrols/e_article001063811.cfm?x=bcrjnQG,bsr9C\

FP) ) April 8, 2008

Court Allows Contractor to Testify to Needed Repairs for Mold

by www.harrismartin.com

Date: 3 April 2008

COURTROOM NEWS

SAN DIEGO — A California appellate court has affirmed a $27,468 verdict for

homebuyers who alleged that defective plumbing caused mold damage in their

newly built home. Bourdette, et al. v. Gardality, et al., No. D0490011 (Calif.

Ct. App., 4th Dist.).

The Court of Appeal, 4th District, also ruled in an unpublished opinion on

March 25 that the buyers’ contractor had sufficient expertise to testify to

needed reconstrusction and repair costs.

and Margaret Bourdette sued Steve Gardality and Twin Oaks Estate Inc.

for damages, alleging that mold in their home was caused by faulty plumbing

in their master bathroom.

At trial in San Diego County Superior Court, the Bourdettes relied on

testimony by a contractor identified as Mr. Floyd, who testified that he had 15

years experience in repairing water and fire damage.

Floyd estimated the cost of mold remediation at $12,127.35 and restoration

costs at $17,367.63 to $25,488.22, depending upon whether countertops could

be salvaged.

The Superior Court jury awarded $27,468 on the couple’s negligence and

strict liability claims, and Gardality and Twin Oaks appealed.

The Court of Appeals first ruled that Gardality and Twin Oaks could not

contest the cause of damage because they introduced no evidence to counter the

Bourdettes’ claim that the plumbing was defective.

The court also rejected their contention that Floyd’s testimony should have

been excluded because he was not an expert in mold or its effects on

structural components.

“Floyd had expertise in repairing the type of water damage caused by

Defendants’ defectively constructed plumbing, and Floyd’s inspection

provided a

foundation for his testimony that various tasks needed to be undertaken to

ensure that the mold resulting from the water damage was eliminated and the

walls, floor, cabinetry and pipes were completely repaired,†the Court of

Appeals

explained.

“A contractor is competent to provide testimony on the cost of repairing

improvements to real property,†the court added, citing LeBrun v. s

([19340] 210 Cal. 308, 319-320).

Pamela J. Labruyere of the Galuppo Law Firm in Carlsbad, Calif., represented

the Bourdettes.

M. Bustillos of San Marcos, Calif., represented Gardality and Twin

Oaks.

Document Is Available

Call (800) 496-4319 or

Search www.harrismartin.com

Opinion Ref# MOL-0804-07

_http://www.harrismartin.com/pdfs/article/Article9637.pdf_

(http://www.harrismartin.com/pdfs/article/Article9637.pdf)

####

Pure Air Control Services

800-422-7873

Published by _Pure Air Control Services _ (mailto:IAQ@...)

Copyright © 2008 Pure Air Control Services. All rights reserved.

Powered by _IMN_ (http://www.imninc.com/)

**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money &

Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolcmp00300000002850)