#MicCheck!  ALL RISE! OccupyVirtually! 

COMPLAINT aYrES vs State Farm

and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive —

DRAFT 1 BELOW

See more inquiries and info on LinkedIn & let’s connect while you’re there. This could be a real adventure.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Are the Courts real fussy about formatting?  If you have any experience with law, could you kindly leave a comment or email me:

InsuredProtectedLoved@gmail.com 

I was expecting a call from a lawyer tonite, but Siri didn’t disconnect from the call I was on fast enough. Darn it!  I also have a call out to a local elder and disabled abuse law firm.

[I was sobbing hysterically when talking to the Disability/Elder Abuse Law Firm receptionist and she transferred me to voice mail.  I might have to make that call again.    It’s just so hard fighting corruption and psychopaths…. it’s hard enough with all your marbles and short and long term memory and no malfunctions of the cranial apparatus.]

Maybe the lawyer will call back tomorrow.  I have to call a paralegal in the morning also.  I think I have to file this tomorrow (without the memes)! But, it could add some color and levity to the Court?  

After one restoration guy recently falsely accused me of stealing his equipment that was abandoned at my property when they abandoned the project, and he told the CSLB investigator that I stole his property, rather than the truth that he didn’t finish the job and didn’t even know equipment was left behind.  I told him about the abandoned equipment when I asked him to return and complete the job. Dude apparently thinks a little sprayed KILZ is remediation, especially in large areas.  I wonder if that complies with IICRC 500 guidelines.  I wonder what #RIA Restoration Industry Association and /or  U.S. Chamber of Commerce might think of such dreadful unscrupulous behavior. 

So, ZERO INTEGRITY AND NOW HIS COMPANY AND THE HYGENIEST HE REFERRED TO THE PROJECT THIS YEAR MUST BE INCLUDED IN DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE COMPLAINT – since the bad behavior confirmed suspicions of cahoots, although they are not part of THAT PARTICULAR PREFERRED VENDOR RACKET.

LAST WEEK, both insurance claims showed open on the mobile State Farm app.  Today, the second claim that the adjusters required me to open after a snow storm, same roof loss, appears closed.  No telling what those Phoenix Boyz are up to next also.  

There’s no telling what other sort of dirty tricks the Does 1-50 might come up with.  Well, one of the parties is suing me in Small Claims Court in November because…. he can. I hope the Judge throws the book at him when the Judge sees the evidence.

Anyhow, if you know anything about law and can peruse these complaints and prayers and give me any helpful input, it would be much appreciated.

I think we can all use something like this as a TEMPLATE.  I’ll let the folks over on Facebook in the MOLD SUPPORT/VICTIM SUPPORT GROUPS know that it’s a pattern and practice of #Insurance carriers to …. handle claims like mine just like they did.  They think they can get away with it.  Well, probably because they have been doing for years. LET’S FIX THAT!

Something is terribly terribly wrong in America, isn’t it!

REMEMBER REMEMBER THE THIRD OF NOVEMBER!  

Linda Ayres, In Pro Per

IN PRO PER FOR PLAINTIFF

COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION – COMPLAINT – DRAFT ONE

GOT CONTRACTOR COMPLAINTS — MIND MAPPING EVENTS AND PLAYERS DRAFT 1 2019   

[ LARGER VERSION OF MIND MAP TIMELINE AND COMPLAINTS  – Take a peak; it’s just a draft through November 2019]

GOT COMPLAINTS FOR DEPT OF INSURANCE Contractor Board & Attorney General? GOT CONTRACTOR COMPLAINTS?

[State Farm response to Insured on behalf of Department of Insurance investigations….. fascinating conclusions, I’m sure you’ll agree]

TO THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND SOCIAL MEDIA CONNECTIONS

DRAFT 1

edited & formatted to the best of my abilities – maybe an ADA accommodation might be offered by the Court to file this?

             This 28th  of October, 2020

I.    THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff, Linda Ayres (“Ayres”) is and at all relevant times was a resident of the Town of Yucca Valley, County of San Bernardino, and State of California.
2. The plaintiff is informed, believes and alleges that the defendant State Farm General Insurance Company (“State Farm”) is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois and is authorized to transact and is transacting the business of insurance in the State of California.
3. The plaintiff is informed, believes and alleges that defendant Paul Davis Restoration, Inc. is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida and is authorized to transact and is transacting business in the State of California. Paul Davis Restoration, Inc. trains, controls, monitors, provides equipment, financially benefits, mandates company standards, sets company culture and enforces company protocols for Paul Davis Restoration, Inc. of Palm Springs and Indian Wells and Palm Springs, California and all of its subsidiaries and franchisees. \
4. The plaintiff is informed, believes and alleges that defendant Servpro Industries, Inc. . is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Tennessee and is authorized to transact and is transacting business in the State of California.  ServProIndustries, Inc.. trains, controls, monitors, provides equipment, financially benefits, mandates company standards, sets company culture and enforces company protocols Desert Restoration, Inc. dba SERVPRO OF PALM and all of its subsidiaries and franchisees.
5. .The plaintiff is informed, believes and alleges that defendant American Environmental Group, a McLarens Company, is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of  California  and is authorized to transact and is transacting business in the State of California.  American Environmental Groups trains, controls, monitors, provides equipment, financially benefits, mandates company standards, sets company culture and enforces company protocols for American Environmental Group  and all of its subsidiaries and franchisees.
6. The true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate , or otherwise, of defendants DOES 1 through 50, are unknown to plaintiff, who therefore designate those defendants by these fictitious names. Each of the defendants sued therefore as a DOE is legally responsible in some manner for the events and happenings referred to and proximately caused the injuries suffered by the plaintiff. Plaintiff will amend this complaint as necessary to allege DOE defendants’ identities when the same becomes known to plaintiff.
7. Plaintiff is informed, believes and alleges that at all relevant times each of the defendants was the agent and employee of each of the remaining defendants, and in some manner and in their actions and inactions alleged were within the course and scope of such agency and employment .

 II. JURISDICTION

8 . Jurisdiction is proper because the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of this Court.

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

9. On February 2, 2019, plaintiffs’ home suffered a sudden roof loss and the whole house was affected by water intrusion and the house was uninhabitable.
10. Plaintiff reported the roof loss and water damage to State Farm. Immediate and thorough emergency dry out was necessary to prevent mold growth and to mitigate further water damage to the home and household goods. Mold can grow within a 24 hour period. This is a known fact to insurance companies and emergency water remediation companies.
11. Through State Farm’s Claims Hotline and Claims office Plaintiff advised asked what the process was for a roof loss. Plaintiff was referred to water remediation companies and State Farm recommended that plaintiff call the local offices of ServPro, Alacrity Services and ServiceMaster and leave a message for any who might respond.
12. Plaintiff was advised that only said vendors could be used under the policy terms. Plaintiff was advised that a temporary tarp could be installed by an unlicensed handyman and was advised to simply save receipts.
13. Plaintiff called State Farm again when no water remediation companies had returned calls and was advised that the Premier Service Contractor Services Program would investigate the delay and dispatch remediation teams.
14. Through State Farm’s Premier Service Contractor Services Program, on February 4, 2019, Plaintiff received an email designating Paul Davis Restoration as the assigned general contractor.
15. Paul Davis Restoration arrived at the house on February 4, 2019.
16. Paul Davis Restoration called a local roofing contractor to obtain an estimate for the roof replacement. The roofer arrived shortly thereafter and provided Paul Davis Restoration with an pricing and installation estimate.
17. Paul Davis Restoration advised Plaintiff that with $7,000 cash, a roof could be installed quickly, by circumventing the relationship between Paul Davis Restoration, Contractor Connection and State Farm Insurance.
18. Plaintiff declined to work outside of the policy requirements and indicating faith in State Farm, as a policy holder for decades.
19. ServPro arrived at the house on February 4, 2019, approximately one hour after the arrival of Paul Davis Restoration.
20. .Plaintiff reiterated disabilities and necessity to work with just one point person and advised Paul Davis Restoration that several vendors had been called at the recommendation by State Farm and asked if ServPro should be sent away.
21. Paul Davis Restoration advised the Plaintiff that they were very busy and that they could work with ServPro and advised to let them stay and begin dry out.
22. Upon arrival and throughout February 2019, Paul Davis Restoration immediately began to function with the appearance of a General Contractor and representative of the insurance company.
23. Paul Davis Restoration, ServPro and American Environmental Group acts and omissions include but are not limited to:
    • a) Placing insufficient dry out equipment.
    • b) Artificially limiting the scope of work to stay within policy limits rather than advise plaintiffs of the true damage.
    • c) Failing to put up barriers to isolated wetted building materials
    • d) Failing to install an adequate and proper tarp immediately and continuously.
    • e) Failing to adequately demo areas of the home to allow for dry out
    • f) Intentionally interfering with the benefits of the plaintiff’s insurance contract with State Farm.
    • g) Damaging the house and its contents
    • h) Ignoring industry standards for dry out and mold prevention
    • i) Obstructing clearance testing
    • j) Covering up microbial growth contamination
    • k) Misrepresenting the status of dry out to Plaintiff
    • l) Causing widespread toxic microbial growth contamination
    • m) Perpetrating a fraud on Plaintiff
    • n) Making false promises to Plaintiff
    • o) Providing services negligently
    • p) Using threats and intimidation and deception in efforts to involve Plaintiff in insurance fraud
24. The poorly once-installed plastic tarp over a portion of the exposed remaining roof—allowed continuous water intrusion and caused great damage with each subsequent storm throughout February 2019. The ServPro representative, upon being immediately the water was still pouring into the home on day 1 said, ‘Don’t worry about it Lady. Let the rain destroy everything; the insurance company will pay for it.’

25. When it became clear in mid-February 2019 that Paul Davis Restoration and ServPro’s actions and inactions had caused extreme additional damage without benefit of a roof installation, and only partial dry out and partial demolition, Plaintiff repeatedly requested authorization from the State Farm adjuster to dismiss and replace both vendors. Authorization was denied repeatedly until March 8, 2019, upon receipt of the delayed estimate through Contractor Connection via Paul Davis Restoration.
26. Contractor Connection, Paul Davis Restoration and ServPro were dismissed on or about March 8, 2019 by the adjuster who had negotiated with them throughout the month.
27. Vendors blamed one another and State Farm that the roof had not been replaced for multiple weeks; Paul Davis Restoration blamed ServPro for not completing the demolition and blamed Contractor Connection for administrative delays with assignments and reassignments. ServPro blamed Paul Davis Restoration for the delays citing that demolition could not complete until roof was replaced.
28. Date of initial loss was 2/2/2019 – and Plaintiff was not provided with any estimates or scopes of work for roof, remediation, buildback until negotiations with State Farm were complete and approved.
29. During the continued February 2019 destruction of the Plaintiff’s home, Paul Davis Restoration negotiated with State Farm for a pack-out of household good water damaged for approximately one week, uncleaned, undried household contents packed into used boxes, with high risk of cross contamination of microbial growth. No progress had been made on roof replacement by Paul Davis Restoration; the delays continued to cause extreme water intrusion and damage.
30. Paul Davis produced a pack-out-contract 3 days after the work was complete, demanding a waiver of the 3 day right to cancel.  The Plaintiff’s 2 car garage was clean and empty, and was never discussed as an option.The entire packout negotiations were made without knowledge of the Plaintiff, who would have questions an $8,000 charge when the garage was empty and the roof was still not replaced. 

31. In March 2019, after Paul Davis Restoration and ServPro had been dismissed, State Farm claims office contacted, negotiated, dispatched and paid for an environmental inspection by American Environmental Group. It appeared that American Environmental Group was also part of the State Farm Contractor Services Program. All negotiations and directions were handled between AEG and the claims office. The report required authorization from the client, State Farm, before release to the Plaintiff. Merely three air samples were taken, providing a false clearance to build back.
32. The environmental report makes no mention of weeks of unabated unremediated water intrusion nor was there mention of the water saturated walls that had not been demolished and dried; yet the report was used by State Farm to authorize build back.
33. Build back was negotiated with the State Farm field representative, using the Paul Davis provided Xactimate estimate and scope of work, with a non-Contractor Services Program General Contractor, Michael Savage Construction. The replacement contractor agreed to the scope of work for the same costs, with minor additions.
34. The Plaintiff had just been released from the hospital after a fall at the hotel, which result in a head injury, broken wrist, and overnight stay in the hospital for observation. The fall happened immediately after a extremely emotional lengthy phone conversation with the adjuster, imploring authorization to dismiss the Contractor Services Program vendors, who had done nothing to save the home and everything to destroy the home and inflate the project cost and build back time.
35. All misdeeds, negligence, threats and dangers were repeatedly reported to the State Farm claims adjuster, with the requests to dismiss the Premier Service Contractor Services Program and report them to the legal and or subrogation departments; All such requests were denied until approximately March 8, 2019.
36. While the deception that the State Farm Premier Service Contractor Services Program was mandatory for policy coverage continued for weeks, on March 8, 2019, authorization was given to dismiss Paul Davis Restoration and ServPro and actual dismissal was handled by the Claims adjuster. Letters dated February 27, 2019 and February 28, 2019 arrived in mid-March, “confirming participation” in the program with an unknown company called Alacrity services – A Lowes Company and Contractor Connection.The mass destruction had already been completed since the arrival and inaction and delay actions of the dispatched vendors.
37. State Farm used its Premier Service Contractor Services Program to minimize the scope of loss and lower payment on the claim. State Farm acted unreasonably and in bad faith in the manner in which it adjusted the claim. State Farm cut off additional living expenses after assuring the Plaintiff of ‘at least two years’ of living expenses; hit behind the contract between Plaintiff and its Premier Service Contractor Services Program vendors, refused to pay its insured then subrogate against its Premier Service Program vendors, and abandoned the disabled and elderly Plaintiff to deal with its Premier Service Program vendors by herself, fending off threats, discrimination and continued abuse and harm. 
38. Rather than accommodate the Plaintiff in like-home accommodations – a 2 bedroom/1 bath with 2 car garage home, Plaintiff was forced to live in a hotel room, with no covered parking, and was required to move 4 times in the first 30 days because State Farm refused to make reservations for longer periods of time that would have made multiple relocations unnecessary. With disabilities, the further disruption and re-relocations was debilitating and a proximate cause of the fall in the hotel parking lot after the upsetting call with the adjuster on or about March 8, 2019.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT

(Against STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

PAUL DAVIS RESTORATION, SERVPRO,  AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP

and DOES 1 through 50)

39. Plaintiff refer to all preceding paragraphs and incorporate them in full in this cause of action.
40. Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract with State Farm General Insurance Company. The contract was for insurance coverage and according to the contract’s terms, State Farm agreed to provide coverage to plaintiffs for loss or damage to their property. Plaintiff  fulfilled their obligations under the contract. Plaintiff paid the premiums and performed or substantially performed the promises they made under the contract, including promptly notifying State Farm of their loss. In the alternative, any obligation or requirement that she may have failed to fulfill is immaterial to the contract, to State Farm’s decision to enter into the contract and to State Farm’s decision to deny coverage to Plaintiff.
41. State Farm breached its duties under the policy by failing to provide the promised insurance coverage for the loss sustained by plaintiff. Plaintiff suffered damages as a direct and proximate results of State Farm’s breach. In addition to being denied the policy’s benefits after a loss, Plaintiff was forced to seek counsel, unsuccessfully, to obtain the policy benefits owed by State Farm. A level of support has been found through social media interactions.
42. Paul Davis Restoration breached its contract with Plaintiff by failing to facilitate a roof replacement without extortion attempts in a timely manner; failing to act in good faith as the assigned General Contractor in working with ServPro for the water loss sustained by Plaintiff for approximately 40 days. Paul Davis Restoration failed to perform its duties under the assignment as General Contractor under the State Farm Premier Service Contractor Services Program; Paul Davis Restoration acting as the State Farm adjuster representative failed to act in good faith in negotiating a pack-out agreement with the adjuster without discussion of options with disabled elderly Plaintiff; Paul Davis Restoration sales representative falsely portrayed himself as a general contractor and a licensed insurance adjuster, being neither. Paul Davis restoration attempted to extort $7,000 for a timely roof replacement for which the local roofer was to be paid $5,000 and State was to be charged approximately $8,300. Rather than have a roof installed when Plaintiff declined to pay them cash, the pack-out was organized directly with the claims adjuster for approximately $8,000. Paul Davis Restoration again demanded cash from the Plaintiff in June 2019, in demands for $500 for the container that stored the uncleaned, water damaged, packed in used boxes household goods; along with a demand to take over payments of a contract negotiated with the State Farm adjuster.  Plaintiff suffered damages as a direct and proximate result of Paul Davis Restoration breach.  PDR failed to perform its duties under the Contract with State Farm Premier Service Contractor Services Program as the assigned General Contractor and Adjuster representative, damaged plaintiff’s home, refused to compensate Plaintiff for the damage it caused, filed an invalid lien against the Plaintiff’s property for approximately $8,000 and filed a claim in Small Claims Court for $5,000.  PDR attempted mediation using ContractorConnection, and falsely stated they only had a contract for a pack-out. Subsequently, PDR responded to a settlement offer with a written proposal to settle for approximately $3,500, keeping it a secret from the insurance company and by proposing a re-written scope of work.  Plaintiff refused as it appeared to be insurance fraud and reported the matter with copy of the document directly to the claims office.
43. ServPro Palm Springs breached its contract with Plaintiffs via the State Farm Premier Service Contractor Program imposed upon the Plaintiff by deception, by failing to provide the promised dry out and mold remediation services for the water loss sustained by Plaintiff. Plaintiff suffered damages as a direct and proximate result of ServPro Palm Springs breach. ServPro Palm Springs failed to perform its duties under the contract with State Farm Premier Service Contractor program, damaged Plaintiffs’home, damaged Plaintiff’s household goods, refused to compensate Plaintiff for the damage it caused and as a consequence Plaintiff was forced to seek counsel, unsuccessfully, to obtain compensation for the damages caused by ServPro Palm Springs.. A level of support has been found through social media interactions.
44. American Environmental Group breached it’s contract with State Farm by failing to provide usual, customary and competent environmental testing for the weeks of unabated water intrusion and consequent water loss sustained by Plaintiff, as contracted with State Farm claims office in March 2019. 
45. American Environmental Group breached it’s contract with Plaintiff by failing to provide promised usual, customary and competent environmental testing for the weeks of unabated water intrusion and consequent water loss and microbial damage sustained by Plaintiff, as contracted with Plaintiff.. American Environmental Group covered up the misconduct and mistakes of their incomplete and negligent March 2019 testing, in the appearance of insurance fraud and cover up. American Environmental Group reports were relied upon by State Farm and Plaintiff in proceeding with build back, which caused extreme toxic exposure to Plaintiff and further microbial damages throughout the house.  American Environmental Group  refused to compensate Plaintiff for the damage it caused and as a consequence Plaintiff was forced to seek counsel, unsuccessfully, to obtain compensation for the damages caused by ServPro Palm Springs.. A level of support has been found through social media interactions

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF THE DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING

(Against STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY and DOES 1 through 50)

46, Plaintiff refers to all preceding paragraphs and incorporates them in full in this cause of action.

47. In every insurance policy there exists an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing that the insurance company will not do anything to injure the rights of the insured to receive the benefit of the policy. State Farm breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing owed to Plaintiff, including but not limited to, the following respects:

a. Unreasonably and in bad faith, placed its own financial interests ahead of its insured in violation of California’s statutory, regulatory and common law;

b. Unreasonably and in bad faith failed to give at least as much consideration to the interests of its insureds as it gave its own interests;

c. Unreasonably and in bad faith denied Plaintiff’s claim for property damage when defendant knew and know the the claim is covered under the policy;

d. Unreasonably and in bad faith used biased experts;

e. Unreasonably and in bad faith failed to stand behind its vendors that are a part of the State Farm Premier Service Contractor Services Program;

f. Unreasonably and in bad faith failed to pay plaintiffs and then subrogate against defendants;

g. Unreasonably and in bad faith withheld payment of sums due and owing Plaintiff;

h. Unreasonably and in bad faith failed to reasonably investigate and process Plaintiff’s claim for benefits;

i. Unreasonably and in bad faith failed to search diligently for evidence that supported payment of the claim;

j. Unreasonably and in bad faith denied claim based on inapplicable policy exclusions;

k. Unreasonable and in bad faith compelled plaintiff to file complaints with the Attorney General, the Department of Insurance.

l. Unreasonably and in bad faith compelled Plaintiff to institute litigation to recover amounts due under the insurance policy required to restore the property to pre-loss condition.

48. The Plaintiff is informed, believes and alleges that State Farm breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing by other acts and omissions of which thy are presently unaware but will be shown according to proof at trial.

49. State Farm has a pattern and practice of closing claims before all damage and cost of repairs are addressed and before all money due and owing is paid.

50. State Farm has a pattern and practice of using its claims department to achieve a certain number of claim denials and underpayments per year in order to save money and increase profits.

51. State Farm has a pattern and practice of denying water claims based on the fabricated argument that the loss occurred over a “period of time” and is not covered.

52. Sate Farm has a pattern of practice that constitutes a conscious course of wrongful conduct that is firmly grounded in the established company policy of State Farm.

53. State Farm has a pattern and practice of using it’s State Farm Premier Service Contractor Services Program vendors to minimize the scope of loss and to pay less money on claims.

54. State Farm has a pattern and practice of terminating additional living expenses before repairs are complete.

55. State Farm has a pattern and practice of recommending financially interested biased State Farm Premier Service Contractor Service Program.

56. State Farm did willfully maliciously coerce Plaintiff’s into accepting use of the State Farm Premier Service Contractor Service Program by deceptively stating the services were required for policy coverage. Assignment, negotiations, estimates, authorizations and dismissals of said vendors excluded Plaintiff in all decisions and negotiations, evidenced by estimate inspection dates, reports, delivery to State Farm and later deliver to Plaintiff, if at all. Vendors repeatedly referred to State Farm as the client, and deceived, demeaned, threatened and intimidated elderly disabled Plaintiff repeatedly, through the first 30+ days of initial home destruction with intent to inflate project profits, then to cover up the crimes and consequent destruction with reckless endangerment to Plaintiff.

57. State Farm has a pattern and practice of putting its own financial interests above those of its insured.

58. Plaintiff is informed, believes and alleges that State Farm committed institutional bad faith by other acts and omissions of which they are presently unaware of but will be shown according to proof at trial.

59 State Farm’s conduct was undertaken or approved by its managing agents, who are and were responsible for claims supervision, operations, communications, and decisions. This unreasonable conduct was undertaken on behalf of State Farm.

60. State Farm further had advance knowledge of the actions and conduct of said individuals whose actions and conduct were ratified, authorized and approved by State Farm, including managing agents whose precise identities are unknown to Plaintiff at this time and therefore identified and designated as Does 1 through 50.
61. As a direct and proximate result of state farm’s breach, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damages. These damages include, but are not limited to (1) loss of real property; (2) loss of additional living expenses; (3) interest on the withheld payments due under the policy; (3) medical evaluations, treatments and medications resulting from extreme toxic microbial exposure resulting from all of the foregoing; (4) unknown long term health consequences and (5) other special, economic and consequential damages of a total amount to be shown at trial.
62. Plaintiff, Linda Marie Ayres, is elderly and disabled and suffers from traumatic brain injury. Ms Ayres’ condition causes her to require systems and structures and organization for routines, familiarity with environment, protection from cognitive and sensory overload, loud noises, bright lights and extreme duress. Ms. Ayres’ disability severely limits he mobility, sociability, meal preparation, driving, cleaning, living outside her home. Ms Ayres requires auditory and visual compensatory strategies to function and prognosis for the condition was poor, and she was instructed to prepare her home for highest functionality possible, with knowledge that assisted living would be imminent without such planning and precautions.Years of planning, systems, structures were stolen from Plaintiff, severely compromising the progress she had made over years of living with Traumatic Brain Injury. The definition of physical disability under California law requires a “limitation” upon a “major life activity,” but does not require a “substantial limitation.” [Gov. Code S 12926.1.] A disorder or condition limits a major life activity if it makes the achievement of the major life activity “difficult.” It need not make it impossible – just difficult. “Major Life Activity” is to be broadly construed to include physical, mental, social activities and working. [Gov. Code S12926.(k).] What this means is, if a physical condition makes working, social activities, physical or mental activities difficult, it is a disability under California law.  Said disabilities were immediately disclosed to all contacts at State Farm and all Vendors, and Plaintiff subsequently fell at the hotel in March 2019 as a consequence of the extreme abuse and duress and discrimination.
63. Plaintiff was evacuated from hotel shelter in March 2020 due to pandemic matters in California. She now lives quietly in her still contaminated house in her kitchen, the only room in the home with insulation, walls and 2 of the 3 electrical fixtures in the house. The house is 95% demolished, pending completion of remediation that began in February 2020, demolishing walls identified in February 2019 as water saturated but not demolished nor remediated, and starting in February 2020, removal of  extreme amount of microbial growth from 2019 water damaged walls,
64. In February 2019 that house was deemed to be 65% demolished due to winds, roof loss and extreme delay in roof protection and replacement caused by the aforementioned parties, named and Does 1 through 50.
65. State Farm cannot discriminate in the claim settlement practices based on the claimant’s disability. [10 Cal.Code of Regulations S 2695.7(a).]
66. As a further proximate result of State Farm’s unreasonable conduct Plaintiff was compelled to seek legal counsel, unsuccessfully, to obtain the benefits due under the policy. State Farm is liable to plaintiffs for attorney fees, witness fees, and costs of litigation reasonably necessary and incurred in order to obtain the policy’s benefits.
67. State Farm intended for its conduct to cause injury to Plaintiff. State Farm engaged in despicable conduct carried out with a willful and conscious disregard of plaintiff’s rights and/or them to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of her rights.State Farm’s conduct constituted an intentional misrepresentation, deceit and/or concealment of material facts known to State Farm with the intention of depriving Plaintiff of property, legal rights and/or of causing other injury. State Farm’s conduct constitutes malice, oppression or fraud under California Civil Code S 3294, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish or set an example of State Farm and deter future similar conduct.
68. In addition to all other remedies provided by law, Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees.
69. State Farm’s conduct was malicious, fraudulent and oppressive with the wrongful intent of injuring and with a willful ad conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. State Farm subjected her to cruel and unjust hardship caused by intentional misrepresentation, deceit and concealment of material facts. These actions were intended to deprive Plaintiff of property and legal right financially harming Plaintiff and financially benefiting defendants. Plaintiff may recover exemplary and punitive damages to punish, set an example of and deter State Farm from future misconduct.
70. State Farm’s conduct was undertaken by State Farm’s officers or managing agents responsible for underwriting and claims supervision, operations, communications and decisions. Conduct of the managing agents and individuals was undertaken on behalf of State Farm. State Farmhad advanced knowledge of these actions and conduct which it ratified, authorized and approved.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS

(Against PAUL DAVIS RESTORATION, SERVPRO, AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP,

and DOES 1 through 50)

71. Plaintiff refers to all preceding paragraphs and incorporates them in full in this cause of action.
72. Defendants intentionally interfered with the insurance contract between Plaintiff and State Farm.
73. There was an insurance contract between Plaintiff and State Farm.
74. Defendants knew of the insurance contract.
75. Defendants intended to disrupt the performance of Plaintiff’s contract with State Farm
76. Defendants’conduct prevented performance or made performance more difficult and in an amount less that what was due and owing.
77. Plaintiff was harmed by the loss of real and personal property that Defendants caused.
78. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD

  (Against PAUL DAVIS RESTORATION, SERVPRO, AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP,

and DOES 1 through 50)

79. Plaintiff refers to all preceding paragraphs and incorporate them in full in this cause of action.
80. Defendants intentionally misrepresented that their work would dry out the water loss, prevent mold, eradicate mold and rid the home of contamination.
81. Defendants deceived Plaintiff into believing that her house was being properly remediated and that the contamination was being eliminated.
82. Defendants concealed from Plaintiff that her home was contaminated with mold. They tried to cover up the contamination with the intention of depriving Plaintiff of the value of her home and the ability to live in her home.
83. Defendants recklessly disregarded the health and safety of Plaintiff and intended to cause Plaintiff financial and personal injury.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FALSE PROMISE

(Against PAUL DAVIS RESTORATION, SERVPRO, AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, and DOES 1 through 50)

84. Plaintiff refers to all preceding paragraphs and incorporates them in full in this cause of action.
85. Plaintiff was harmed by the false promises made by defendants.
86. Defendants promised Plaintiff that her home would be dried out, that mold contamination would be remediated; that they were doing everything necessary and proper to eradicate the loss and that the home was free of mold contamination.
87. The promises of defendants were relied on by the Plaintiff who would not have authorized them to commence work had she know the promises were false and that the State Farm Premier Service Contractor Service Program vendors couldn’t care less if the job was performed properly as long as they were paid by State Farm for the work they charged State Farm for.
88. The defendants intended that Plaintiff rely on their promises.
89. Plaintiff reasonably relied on the promises of defendants who represented that they would dry out the home and rectify any mold contamination that defendants caused.
90. Defendants did not dry out the home. Defendants caused mold and other microbial growth dangers and contamination. Although the defendants promised the home had been remediated, they knew the promise to be untrue. Defendants did not perform the work that they promised to perform.
91. Plaintiff was harmed by her house being uninhabitable due to the contamination defendants caused; the resale value of her home is affected due to disclosure issues concerning mold contamination, she has suffered extreme emotional distress and inconvenience.
92. Plaintiff’s reliance on defendants’promises were a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff harm.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONALMISREPRESENTATION RELATIONS

(Against PAUL DAVIS RESTORATION, SERVPRO, AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP and DOES 1 through 50)

93. Plaintiff refers to all preceding paragraphs and incorporates them in full in this cause of action.
94. Defendants made false representations that harmed Plaintiff.
95. Defendants misrepresented to Plaintiff that her home would be dried out, that mold contamination would be prevented; that mold contamination would be remediated; that they were doing everything necessary and proper to eradicate the loss and that the home was free of mold contamination.
96. Defendants’ representations were false.
97. Defendants misrepresentations, that the water loss was dry and that any mold was remediated, were made recklessly and without regard for their truth.
98. Defendants intended Plaintiff to relyon their false representations.
99. Plaintiff reasonably relied on defendant’s false and reckless misrepresentations.
100. Plaintiff was harmed by defendants’ false and reckless representations.
101. Plaintiffs’ reliance on defendants’ misrepresentations was a substantial factor in causing her harm.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE

(Against PAUL DAVIS RESTORATION, SERVPRO, AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP,

and DOES 1 through 50)

102. Plaintiff refers to all preceding paragraphs and incorporates them in full in this cause of action.
103. defendants were negligent in performing work on Plaintiff’s home
104. Defendants misrepresented to Plaintiff that her home would be dried out, that mold contamination would be prevented; that mold contamination would be remediated; that they were doing everything necessary and proper to eradicate the loss and tht the home was free of mold contamination.
105. Plaintiff was harmed by the negligent conduct of Defendants.
106. Defendants’ negligence in performing their work was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff harm.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1. Plaintiff brings this action to recover for the loss she has suffered owing to State Farm’s refusal to live up to the promises made under the insurance policy and by the other defendants for failing to live up to the promises made in their contracts.
2. Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment as follows:

First Cause of Action – Breach of Contract

(Against PAUL DAVIS RESTORATION, SERVPRO, AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, and DOES 1 through 50)

3. Damages under the policy, plus interest, including prejudgment interest and other economic and consequential damages, in an amount to be determined according to proof at the time of trial;
4. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
5. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Second Cause of Action – Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

(Against State Farm General Insurance Company)

6. Damages for wrongful denial and failure to provide benefits under the policy, plus interest, including prejudgment interest, in a sum to be determined at the time of trial;
7. For attorneys’ fees, witness fees and costs of litigation incurred by Plaintiff to obtain policy benefits in an amount to be determined at trial;
8. For economic and consequential damages arising out of the State Farm’s unreasonable failure to provide benefits under the policy;
9. For general damages for mental and emotional distress.
10. For punitive and exemplary damages in an amount appropriate to punish or set an example of State Farm;
11. For costs of suit incurred herein;
12. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Third Cause of Action – Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations

(Against PAUL DAVIS RESTORATION, SERVPRO, AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, and DOES 1 through 50)

13. Damages for interfering with the benefits under the policy, plus interest, including prejudgment interest, in a sum to be determined at the time of trial;
14. For attorneys’s fees, witness fees and costs of litigation incurred by Plaintiff to obtain policy benefits in an amount to be determined at trial;
15. For economic and consequential damages arising out of the defendants’ unreasonable failure to provide benefits under the policy;
16. For general damages for mental and emotional distress;
17. For costs of suit incurred herein;
18. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Fourth Cause of Action – Fraud Relations

  (Against PAUL DAVIS RESTORATION, SERVPRO, AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP and DOES 1 through 50)

19.  Damages for interfering with the benefits under the policy, plus interest, including prejudgment interest, in a sum to be determined at the time of trial;

20.. For attorneys’s fees, witness fees and costs of litigation incurred by Plaintiff to obtain policy benefits in an amount to be determined at trial;

21.. For economic and consequential damages arising out of the defendants’ unreasonable failure to provide benefits under the policy;

22.. For general damages for mental and emotional distress;

23. For costs of suit incurred herein;

24.. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Fifth  Cause of Action – Fraud Relations

(Against PAUL DAVIS RESTORATION, SERVPRO, AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, and DOES 1 through 50)

25. Economic damages for all costs involved in repairing the damage caused by defendants, plus interest, including prejudgment interest, in a sum to be determined at the time of trial;

26.  For attorneys’s fees, witness fees and costs of litigation incurred by Plaintiff to obtain policy benefits in an amount to be determined at trial;

27. For economic and consequential damages arising out of the defendants’ unreasonable failure to provide benefits under the policy;

28.. For general damages for mental and emotional distress;

29 . For costs of suit incurred herein;

30. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Sixth  Cause of Action – Intentional Misrepresentation Relations

(Against PAUL DAVIS RESTORATION, SERVPRO, AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, and DOES 1 through 50)

31. Damages for interfering with the benefits under the policy, plus interest, including prejudgment interest, in a sum to be determined at the time of trial;
32. For attorneys’s fees, witness fees and costs of litigation incurred by Plaintiff to obtain policy benefits in an amount to be determined at trial;
33. For economic and consequential damages arising out of the defendants’ unreasonable failure to provide benefits under the policy;
34. For general damages for mental and emotional distress;
35. For costs of suit incurred herein;
36. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Seventh  Cause of Action – Negligence 

(Against PAUL DAVIS RESTORATION, SERVPRO, AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, and DOES 1 through 50)

37. Damages for interfering with the benefits under the policy, plus interest, including prejudgment interest, in a sum to be determined at the time of trial;
38. For attorneys’s fees, witness fees and costs of litigation incurred by Plaintiff to obtain policy benefits in an amount to be determined at trial;
39. For economic and consequential damages arising out of the defendants’ unreasonable failure to provide benefits under the policy;
40. For general damages for mental and emotional distress;
41. For costs of suit incurred herein;
42. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Date:  _________________ 2020               

                                                                        By:_____________________

Linda Ayres, In Pro Per

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

            Linda Ayres demands a jury trial on all causes of action that can be heard by a jury.

Date:   _________________ 2020

                                                                        By: _________________________

      Linda Ayres_