Patrick Roberts of Gray•Duffy’s Encino office reached an agreement with the developer’s counsel to forego pursuit of the collection of a default judgment against the insurance carrier for the client, a large roofing subcontractor.
Benjamin Aguilar, et al v. Victoria Place, LLC
The developers obtained a more than $1 million default judgment against the subcontractor, Mayer Roofing. The developers then proceeded to make a claim against Gray•Duffy’s client, the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, as an excess insurer for Mayer Roofing. Gray•Duffy reviewed the default judgment documentation and declarations, and provided a specific response to the developers’ counsel indicating that the methodology undertaken to determine the judgment (through Declarations under penalty of perjury) was inaccurate, and could be construed as an inappropriate argument to the Court. For example, the developers asserted that Mayer was responsible for 34 percent of the architectural claims (on a cost of repair in excess of $10 million), but subsequent documentation indicated that the allocation to Mayer was actually only 3.7 percent. Patrick Roberts of Gray•Duffy cited numerous computational errors and inappropriate allocation analysis, specifically indicating that the alleged judgment by the developers was overstated by more than $600,000, and therefore, the judgment was void or voidable.
In addition, Gray•Duffy pointed out that there were significant issues with respect to the houses for which the default judgment applied, and none of the claims would prevail against the excess carrier’s policies. As a result, the developers agreed not to move forward with collection of their default judgment as against the firm’s client.
Please Note: This article is necessarily general in nature and is not a substitute for legal advice with respect to any particular case. Readers should consult with an attorney before taking any action affecting their interests.