By Denny Walsh
Bee Staff Writer
(Published Oct. 5, 2000)
Thomas Anderson just wanted the Allstate Insurance Co. to pay for damage to his Placerville home from broken water pipes -- about $72,000, including living expenses.
But Allstate refused, touching off an almost four-year battle that resulted this week in a jury ordering the "Good Hands People" to fork over $18.5 million to the 96-year-old Anderson.
"I can't fly, but if I could I would," said Anderson, who uses a walker, after Tuesday's verdict by the five-woman, one-man jury.
Speaking in the courthouse hallway, Anderson said the month-long trial, and especially the diligence of the jurors, "helped reinforce my faith in our system of justice and, at the age of 96, I am truly grateful to see people still care about people."
Dennis Seley, lead trial attorney for Allstate, said there will be an appeal.
Anderson's ordeal began January 1997, when a water pipe burst in the ceiling of his Mosquito Road home.
Allstate paid Anderson $35,000 to cover repairs to his house. The company balked at further repair costs as excessive, and did not pay certain claimed losses of personal property because it concluded the items were not water damaged.
Anderson claimed the damage forced him out of his house, and he wanted Allstate to pay $900 monthly rent to his son.
The company refused, concluding Anderson already was living with his son.
When repairs were completed the following month, Anderson moved back in, but in April, an industrial hygienist found potentially dangerous levels of mold in the house. Anderson again moved out.
He sued Allstate and Harry James Hirsch Jr. of Loomis, who was hired by Allstate as an independent adjuster to assess the damage to the Placerville home.
Hirsch, who has since gone to work for Allstate, earlier paid Anderson $8,000 to settle the matter.
Ronald Haven, lead trial attorney for Anderson, said the jurors told him in a post-trial meeting that they spent a lot of time during deliberations unsuccessfully "trying to find something that Allstate did right."
Stanley Parrish, another attorney for Anderson who was also in the meeting, said the jurors "were astounded at (Allstate's) conduct."
The jury Thursday first awarded Anderson $121,213 for what it found to be the insurance giant's breach of the terms of Anderson's homeowner's policy, and $363,640 for what it deemed Allstate's failure to deal with Anderson in good faith.
At that time, the jurors found that the company "acted with oppression, fraud, or malice." They returned Tuesday to hear arguments from the attorneys on whether punitive damages were appropriate and, if so, how much they should be.
It took them just three hours to decide on $18.5 million.
Seley and his client are "obviously disappointed at the results. We don't feel the company's conduct rose to the level of bad faith. Obviously, the jury saw it otherwise."
Before Tuesday's arguments, the jury was told by U.S. Magistrate Judge Peter A. Nowinski that Illinois-based Allstate's net worth is $12 billion.
A $60 million punitive award would be like a nickel to the company, Haven told the jurors.
He urged the jury to "blast them out of their corporate nonchalance. Make the top brass sit up and take notice so there will be no more Tom Andersons."
"Make them decide it's better business not to deprive people of their benefits, and live up to their advertising and really be 'The Good Hands People.'"
Seley, however, assured the jury it had already sent a message with the nearly $500,000 in damages awarded Thursday.
"I can tell you that we've gotten your message," he said. "This is not something where we're saying, 'No big deal.'"
On the other hand, Seley argued, the evidence does not show a companywide pattern or practice. It shows, instead, "indiscretions of one or more people who worked for Allstate."
"This is not a Firestone situation, where a company has knowingly put bad tires on the road for years," he added.
Seley opened his argument by turning to Anderson and apologizing on behalf of Allstate.
"I'm sure Mr. Anderson appreciates the apology nearly four years later," Haven observed wryly in his rebuttal.