|
January 21, 2010 (Los Angeles)
Jon Tisdale, a partner at Gilbert, Kelly, Crowley & Jennett LLP, was retained by a corporate client to defend an absentee landlord to whom it owed a duty of defense and indemnity in a premises liability/toxic mold exposure case involving an employee at a corporate office in Pasadena, California. The employee alleged that she was exposed to black mold and sustained multiple upper respiratory and other injuries. Since the alleged injuries occurred while the employee was in the course and scope of her employment with the corporate defendant, the plaintiff received workers compensation benefits pursuant to the Labor Code. However, the property and building where the corporation housed its offices was actually owned by an absentee Limited Partnership; therefore, the employee also sued the New York-based landlord directly for knowingly exposing her to the toxic mold.
Following the deposition of the plaintiff, Mr. Tisdale and GKC&J partner Jennifer Calderon wrote a Motion for Summary Judgment based upon several theories. First, it was argued that since plaintiff's employer had contractually assumed responsibility for building maintenance from the absentee landlord, there could be no liability attributed to the landlord. Second, the only arguably negligent party was the employer, and plaintiff was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of Labor Code Section 3601 et seq. from suing her employer. Third, since the absentee landlord was not responsible for building maintenance under the terms and conditions of the lease, they were never provided with notice of the alleged dangerous condition and therefore had no opportunity to correct it prior to the exposure.
While the Motion for Summary Judgment was pending, defendant extended a generous compromise offer of settlement. The settlement offer was accepted by plaintiff, but no Release or Dismissal was forthcoming. With no notice or communication whatsoever, plaintiff and her counsel repudiated the settlement and waited for the motion to go off calendar. When it became evident that the settlement was now off the table, the Motion for Summary Judgment was argued by Mr. Tisdale, and granted as to plaintiff's entire complaint. Costs were awarded and the cost award has been reduced to a money judgment against plaintiff.
|
