Toxic Mold - Jury Verdicts

______ Binding arbitration award of $350,000 to Plaintiff Brunner against Defendants EMCASCO Insurance Company and Michigan Claims Service d/b/a ASU. See Editor's Note. - Mold Exposure Results in Arbitration Award
Facts: A homeowner was awarded $350,000 pursuant to binding arbitration for injuries she allegedly sustained due to exposure to mold. Plaintiff homeowner received an additional sum of $120,000 pursuant to an earlier settlement.

Plaintiff Cheri Brunner owned a home in Warren. She went on vacation during the winter. When she returned, she found that her home had been broken into a...
- from The Georgia Trial Reporter (133146) Login for Toxic Mold Verdict
______ $1,800,000, including $200,000 to plaintiff's wife for loss of consortium. - Commercial Landlord Ordered to Pay Damages for Mold Exposure
Facts: A mold exposure claim against a premises owner resulted in a verdict of $1,800,000. A claim against a co-worker resulted in a defense verdict. Claims against two other defendants were dismissed prior to trial.

Plaintiff Nathan Cameron began working as a sales director for Defendant Merisel Americas in November 1988. The parent company of Merisel Americas was Defendant Mer...
- from The Carolina Verdict Reporter (127107) Login for Toxic Mold Verdict
______ $5,000 - Office Employee Blames Ailments on Mold Exposure
Facts: A woman who worked in a four-story office building in downtown Cambridge claimed to have suffered multiple medical ailments as a result of toxic mold exposure. She contended the building owners were liable for her injuries because they failed to correct a roof leak that led to the toxic condition. Defendants denied liability and claimed the woman's symptoms were related to other medi...
- from The Michigan Trial Reporter (129459) Login for Toxic Mold Verdict
______ $1,180,000 - Mold Damage Claim Settles Prior to Trial
Facts: A business owner suffered multiple health defects after being exposed to toxic molds in the workplace. He claimed the molds developed due to faulty construction and the construction company that built his office was responsible. The case settled for $1,180,000.

Plaintiff Steven R. Jones owned and operated a car dealership, Steve Jones Auto Group d/b/a Steve Jones Honda, i...
- from The Carolina Verdict Reporter (127363) Login for Toxic Mold Verdict
______ $270,000. Breakdown: $250,000 in non - Renter Seeks Redress for Toxic Mold Exposure
Facts: The tenant in a rental home allegedly suffered physical damages as a result of water intrusion and mold, which defendant property owner reportedly failed to remediate. A St. Mary's County jury awarded the plaintiff $270,000 in economic and non-economic damages.

Plaintiff Margaret Buckler and her husband rented a house from Defendant David Raley. The Bucklers lived in the ...
- from The Michigan Trial Reporter (129643) Login for Toxic Mold Verdict
______ VERDICT Property rights - Inverse condemnation - Alleged flooding to property as a result of construction of roadway - Mold issues.
In this inverse condemnation action, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant's road project caused a catastrophic impact on their property due to flooding from the newly constructed roadway. The defendant maintained that any mold pre-existed the construction of the roadway. Alternatively, the defendant argued that the cross-defendant paving company was liable for the plaintiff's damages.
- from The National Jury Verdict Review and Analysis (64009) Login for Toxic Mold Verdict
______ $1,252,135 - Large Verdict for Homeowners Forced from Residence by Mold
Facts: A Circuit Court jury in Frederick County returned a $1,252,135 verdict for homeowners who alleged trespass and negligence against a city following flooding which occurred in a residence.

Plaintiffs Gary Golden and Pamela Golden pursued this action for damages against Defendant City of Brunswick. They alleged they were forced to move out of their residence due to black tox...
- from The Michigan Trial Reporter (129836) Login for Toxic Mold Verdict
______ $780,000 reduced to $20,000. Breakdown: $400,000 to Rose Odaris; $300,000 to Plaintiff Tatenda; and $60,000 to Thomas Odaris for physical harm from toxic mold. Plaintiffs were also awarded $20,000 for destruction of personal property. See Editor's Note. - Judge Sets Aside Large Verdict in Mold Exposure Case
Facts: An award of $780,000 to a family claiming illness from toxic mold exposure was reduced to $20,000 by the trial judge. The judge determined that plaintiffs failed to provide medical evidence that their physical ailments were caused by mold exposure and set aside what the jury awarded them for the alleged exposure. An award for $20,000 for destruction of personal property was affirmed ...
- from The Virginia Verdict Reporter (138354) Login for Toxic Mold Verdict
______ VERDICT Property rights - Inverse condemnation - Alleged flooding to property as a result of construction of roadway - Mold issues.
In this inverse condemnation action, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant's road project caused a catastrophic impact on their property due to flooding from the newly constructed roadway. The defendant maintained that any mold pre-existed the construction of the roadway. Alternatively, the defendant argued that the cross-defendant paving company was liable for the plaintiff's damages.
- from The National Jury Verdict Review and Analysis (50892) Login for Toxic Mold Verdict

Content provided by JVRA.com. LegalView is not responsible for the accuracy of the information provided above.


Need A Toxic Mold Attorney?

First Name Last Name Email Address State
Has Your Health Been Negatively Affected?

Please Describe the Injury

Your Friend's Email Address

Your Email Address

Type a Message (optional)


 

Close (x)

Looking for an Attorney?


Please type your question:

Close (x)

logo Find Legal Help for Your Toxic Mold Case - Submit Your Information Below

Do you need legal assistance with your Toxic Mold case?
LegalView may be able to help.


Submit your information below for a free, no-cost evaluation.

We'll submit your information to one of our partner firms.
LegalView's partners represent clients throughout the United States, for a very wide range of legal issues. Submit your information now, to see if one of LegalView's partners can help!

* Indicates Required Fields

First name *
Last name *
Email Address *
Phone Number *
()  -

State *
Legal Issue * Environmental Toxins: Toxic Mold Change
Was There an Injury?
Please Describe The Injury

DISCLAIMER and STATEMENT OF NON-CONFIDENTIALITY

By submitting this form, you agree that completing the above is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship.

Disclosure

Legal WebTV Network LLC, LegalView.com, and LegalWebMedia.com are group advertising sponsored by the attorneys identified here. It is not a lawyer referral service. If you submit information on this website [more...]

Legal WebTV Network LLC, LegalView.com, and LegalWebMedia.com are group advertising sponsored by the attorneys identified here. It is not a lawyer referral service. If you submit information on this website, LegalWebMedia.com will submit your information to the law firms that pay for this group advertising and to respond to your requests for information concerning legal services in their assigned local areas. If there is no sponsoring firm in your state, your inquiry will be submitted to one of the sponsoring law firms on a predetermined, rotating basis. If the sponsoring law firm accepts your case, it will associate with licensed attorneys practicing in your state, if required; the sponsoring law firm may also contact other law firms to see if they may be able to assist.

The information provided by the LegalView.com and LegalWebMedia.com websites is for advertising and informational purposes and should not be considered as legal advice from the sponsoring attorneys. The websites contain general information and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts, or settlements. LegalView.com contains information created by others or supplied through open forums; the sponsoring law firms are not responsible for the accuracy of this information. Any person viewing or receiving information from these websites should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any such information without first seeking appropriate legal advice from an attorney in your area. Legal WebTV Network, LLC expressly disclaims any liability with respect to actions taken or not taken by the recipient based on any or all of the information or contents contained in these websites.

Any information sent to Legal WebTV Network LLC through this website is done using standard Web encryption techology. LegalView.com will exercise all reasonable care, within technological limits, to protect the confidentiality of any information submitted via Internet e-mail or through this website. By accessing this website, you may be seeking an attorney to represent you or legal advice. However, none of the sponsoring attorneys represent you yet.

The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

Any transmission of information, whether via Internet e-mail or through the website, is solely for evaluation purposes by the sponsoring law firms and their associates. The transmission of any information to any attorney sponsoring advertising on LegalView.com or LegalWebMedia.com does not create an attorney-client relationship between the sender and any recipient. An attorney-client relationship can only be created by a written, signed-fee agreement entered into with an attorney. The sponsoring attorneys will treat your information as a confidential communication for the purpose of obtaining legal services or legal advice.

For more information about the sponsoring law firms, please click here.

This form is secure and encrypted. More information about secure forms and your privacy here.