Michael Eisenbaum of Gray•Duffy’s Encino office successfully negotiated the dismissal of the firm’s client, Palisades Plumbing, after outlining the reasons why the defense would succeed on a Motion for Summary Judgment
essay writting company can viagra harm you https://eventorum.puc.edu/usarx/can-you-buy-cialis-over-the-counter-in-new-zealand/82/ http://mechajournal.com/alumni/eloquent-essay-online/12/ cialis suppliers uk thesis cover custom writing paper service application essay services https://healthimperatives.org/rxstore/viagra-cialis-herbal-samples/71/ viagra orange juice go thesis builder tool creative writing when i grow up http://bookclubofwashington.org/books/script-writing-agency/14/ https://artsgarage.org/blog/buy-diplomat-oven/83/ como funciona cialis diario over counter drugs spain viagra public health in transition essays viagra discount online popular application letter writer service for phd dissertation abstracts online https://reprosource.com/hospital/viagra-muy-barata/72/ enter site go site business report format get link go site go to link online store acyclovir essay traveling experience go here State Farm General Insurance Company v. Palisades Plumbing, Inc.
This case involved a water damage incident that occurred on August 24, 2017 at a residential property located at 16223 Shadow Mountain Drive, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272.
Apparently, the water leak occurred from the master bathroom shower on the second level, after Palisades Plumbing, Inc. had performed repair work on an angle stop and insta-hot water spout for the kitchen sink. The amount of damage paid by the homeowner’s insurance was $45,626.31, and they sued Palisades Plumbing, Inc. claiming they caused the damage. However, the client did not do any work in the upstairs bathroom.
Early on in the case, Gray•Duffy served a CCP 998 offer in the amount of $2,500 which was not accepted. Through discovery, we established that the Plaintiff had no evidence to contradict our client’s version of the events, such that Plaintiff would not be able to prove its case. We advised Plaintiff’s counsel we would file a Motion for Summary Judgment if they did not dismiss the case. After discussions with Plaintiff’s counsel, they finally agreed to dismiss in exchange for a waiver of costs.
Thus, the case was dismissed without any money being paid to the subrogating insurance company.
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.