Opinion
CIVIL 1:23-cv-321
10-30-2023
FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. GOLDEN HAMMER RENNOVATIONS, et al., Defendants.
(BLOOM, MAGISTRATE JUDGE)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
(RAMBO, JUDGE)
I. Introduction
The Clerk of Court entered a default judgment against the defendants-Golden Hammer Renovations and Euler Suarez-Vidal-on August 28, 2023, and this case was referred to the undersigned to determine the value of that judgment. This court conducted a damages hearing on October 18, 2023, during which only the plaintiff, Foremost Insurance Company, presented evidence. In light of the evidence presented at the hearing, we recommend that judgment be entered against the defendants in the amount of $123,790.75.
II. Factual Background
On February 23, 2023, the plaintiff, Foremost Insurance Company, filed this subrogation action against Golder Hammer Renovations and its sole owner, Euler Suarez-Vidal. (Doc. 1). The complaint alleges that Tina Fair, who held a home insurance policy with Foremost, hired Suarez-Vidal to renovate, among other things, her third-floor bathroom. (Id.). On August 6, 2021, Suarez-Vidal allegedly installed a clamp on a water supply line in Ms. Fair's third-floor bathroom in an “unprofessional and unskilled manner,” causing all three floors of her property to flood. (Id.). The complaint alleges that Ms. Fair made a claim with Foremost for the damage caused by the flooding, which exceeded $137,000. (Id.).
Suarez-Vidal and Golden Hammer were both served on March 13, 2023. (Docs. 4-5). Neither defendant responded to the complaint. Foremost moved for a default judgment on August 21, 2023, and for an entry of default on August 24, 2023. (Docs. 8-9). The Clerk of Court entered default against the defendants on August 28, 2023. (Doc. 10). On September 14, 2023, Judge Rambo granted Foremost's motion for a default judgment and scheduled a hearing to determine the value of the judgment. (Doc. 11).
This case was subsequently referred to the undersigned. On October 18, 2023, we held a damages hearing via Zoom. Foremost appeared at the hearing and presented testimony from Mark Militzer- a claims adjuster for Foremost-and introduced nine exhibits.
The following recitation of facts is taken from the evidence and testimony elicited at the hearing and represents the facts that we find were established by a preponderance of the evidence.
Mr. Militzer testified that Foremost reimbursed Ms. Fair for three categories of damages-property damage, lost rent, and destruction of the contents of the home. According to Mr. Militzer, the property damages fell into two categories-the cost of water mitigation services and the cost of repairing the home. The record shows that Ms. Fair hired ASJ Restoration and Cleaning services to mitigate the water damage to her property. Invoices from ASJ show that the company, among other things, pumped water from the house, removed water-damaged carpet, walls, and flooring, and applied antimicrobial spray to the affected areas. The invoice shows that the total cost of ASJ's mitigation services was $20,789.53. Foremost submitted a check and a written notice showing that it reimbursed Ms. Fair in the amount of $20,298.61 for ASJ's services.
In support of its claim that it reimbursed Ms. Fair for the cost of repairing the interior of the home, Foremost introduced a walkthrough video showing the damage to the property shortly after the flood, pictures of the home during and after the repair process, estimates detailing the cost of making the repairs, and the testimony of Mr. Militzer. Mr. Militzer testified that the walkthrough video was a recording of a video call between himself and a contractor, whom Ms. Fair hired to repair the property.
The video shows that Ms. Fair's property contains three floors, each of which has a separate rental unit. The third floor of the property contains four rooms-a kitchen, a bathroom, and two bedrooms. According to the contractor, the third-floor kitchen and bedrooms had recently been renovated with laminate vinyl tile. The video shows that all laminate vinyl tile and some of the base trim and quarter-round molding in the third-floor kitchen and bedrooms had been removed due to water damage.
The second floor contains four rooms, three of which were waterdamaged. The hardwood floor and the drywall in the second floor living room was damaged and had been removed by the time the video was taken. In the second-floor bedroom, the plaster walls and ceilings had been removed due to water damage. Additionally, the trim around the windows in the second-floor bedroom had been water-damaged and the vinyl floor in the second-floor bathroom had been removed in its entirety. However, the second-floor kitchen was unaffected by the flooding.
The video shows that the first floor contained three rooms-a bedroom, a living room, and a kitchen. Like the kitchen on the second floor, the kitchen on the first floor was unaffected by the flooding. However, in the living room, the drop ceiling, and the plaster ceiling above it had been severely damaged. Similarly, in the first-floor bedroom, the drop ceiling and plaster ceilings were severely damaged, as were the two doors to the bedroom and the trim on three windows. In the first-floor living room, the vinyl floor had been removed and approximately half of the walls and ceilings had been visibly waterdamaged.
The home contained two stairwells-one between the first and second floors and another between the second and third floors-and three hallways, one on each floor. Both stairwells had been damaged and, according to the contractor, would need to be sanded and repainted. In the first-floor hallway, the entire floor and most of the ceiling had been removed and the walls had been severely water-damaged. Additionally, the front door trim had been damaged and the vinyl floors in the second-and third-floor hallways had been removed.
The pictures taken during the repair process show that most ceilings and walls in the home were ultimately removed. Additionally, the photographs taken after the repairs were completed show that, among other things, the floors were replaced with vinyl plank flooring and the sheet rock walls and ceilings were replaced and painted. Foremost provided an itemized estimate for the cost of making the repairs, which totaled $83,524.14. Mr. Militzer testified that the actual cost of repairing the interior of the home was the same as the estimate. Therefore, Mr. Militzer testified that the total cost of repairing the property damage caused by the flooding was $104,822.75-$20,789.53 for the water mitigation service and $83,524.14 to replace the damaged walls, ceilings, floors, base trim, and permanent fixtures.
Mr. Militzer also testified that Foremost paid Ms. Fair $19,200 to compensate her for lost rent. He testified that Ms. Fair received $2,400 in total monthly rental income from the three units in her property, which could not be occupied for eight months due to the water damage. Finally, Mr. Militzer testified that the cost of replacing the lost contents of the home was $1,768.
At the end of the hearing, Mr. Militzer testified that the total amount of damage incurred by Ms. Fair was $124,790.75-104,822.75 in property damage, $19,200 in lost rent, and $1,768 in damaged contents. However, Mr. Militzer further explained that Ms. Fair paid Foremost a $1,000 deductible pursuant to her insurance agreement. Therefore, Foremost requested that the court enter judgment against the defendants in the amount of $123,790.75, which represents the total damage incurred by Ms. Fair minus her $1,000 deductible. This court recommends that Foremost's request be granted.
III. Discussion
A. Applicable Law
“The general rule is that victims must be compensated for all their losses caused by the negligence of another.” Hawley v Donahoo, 416 Pa. Super. 469, 472, 611 A.2d 311, 312 (1992) (citing Boggavarapu v. Ponist, 518 Pa. 162, 167, 542 A.2d 516, 518 (1988)). In a negligence case, the plaintiff must prove causation by a preponderance of the evidence. Pusateri v. Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P., 646 F.Supp.3d 650, 653 (W.D. Pa. 2022). When ruling on causation after default has been entered, a court will rely on the well-pled factual allegations in the complaint and sworn testimony produced after the entry of default. See DIRECTV, Inc. v. Pepe, 431 F.3d 162, 164 (3d Cir. 2005); Doe v. Whitebread, No. CV 3:151165, 2017 WL 590272, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 14, 2017). Because this is a subrogation action, Foremost-the subragee-is “‘in the precise position of.'” Ms. Fair, “‘the one to whose rights and disabilities [it] is subrogated.'” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Clarke, 364 Pa. Super. 196, 201, 527 A.2d 1021, 1024 (1987). Therefore, the question before the court is whether Foremost has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendants caused Ms. Fair, the subrogor, $123,790.75 worth of damages. We believe that it has.
Foremost also brought two other claims-gross negligence and breach of contract. (Doc. 1). However, we find it unnecessary to analyze which categories of damages Foremost would be entitled to recover under those causes of action because it can recover “all [its] losses...” through its negligence claim. Donahoo, 416 Pa. Super. at 472.
B. Judgment Should Be Entered in Favor of the Plaintiff in The Amount of $123,790.75.
Because this court must accept the well-pled factual allegations in the complaint, it is established that Mr. Suarez-Vidal improperly installed a clamp on a water line in Ms. Fair's third-floor bathroom, causing flooding on all three floors of her property. It is clear from the video and pictures that all three floors in Ms. Fair's property were severely water-damaged. Therefore, there is no question that Suarez-Vidal caused damage to every floor of Ms. Fair's property.
Foremost has also proven that it is entitled to the specific amount of damages that it seeks. At the damages hearing, Mr. Militzer testified that Ms. Fair suffered damages in the amount of $124,790.75- 104,822.75 in property damage, $19,200 in lost rent, and $1,768 in damaged contents. He further testified that Foremost reimbursed Ms. Fair for the full amount of those damages after she paid her $1,000 deductible. The defendants did not appear at the hearing and did not offer any contradictory evidence. Mr. Militzer's uncontradicted testimony, by itself, is sufficient proof that Foremost is entitled to a judgment in the amount of $123,790.75, which represents the total damage incurred by Ms. Fair minus her $1,000 deductible.
However, Foremost presented additional evidence to corroborate Mr. Militzer's testimony. Specifically, the invoices from AJS corroborate Foremost's claim that it had to reimburse Ms. Fair for at least $20,298.61-the amount it now seeks as reimbursement for ASJ's water mitigation services. Furthermore, Foremost presented an itemized estimate of the cost of repairing the interior of the home, which corroborates Mr. Militzer's testimony that the total cost of the repairs was $83,524.14. Accordingly, the evidence before the court, all of which is uncontradicted, shows that Foremost, as Ms. Fair's subrogee, suffered $123,790.75 worth of damages.
IV. Recommendation
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the court enter judgment against the defendants jointly and severally in the amount of $123,790.75.
The parties are further placed on notice that pursuant to Local Rule 72.3:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk 11 of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.