Los Angeles Jury Returns Defense Verdict in Mold Bodily Injury Case

5 August 2005

Following a six week trial, a Los Angeles jury returned a defense verdict in a closely watched case involving
claims of bodily injury from exposure to mold in a single family residence located in West Covina, California.

Plaintiff Dr. Sannette Gite claimed she was injured as a result of exposure to mold in her home which caused her to flee the 5,200 square foot residence without any of her personal belongings. In particular, Dr. Gite claimed a myriad of physical ailments from the alleged microbial exposure including permanent brain damage, upper and lower respiratory problems, lung incapacity, voice impairment, low white blood cell count, dizziness, lethargy,
shortness of breath, gastrointestinal problems, bloating, diarrhea, angina, hair loss, headaches, memory loss, stuttering, rashes and skin discoloration.
She blamed Home Depot and its trade contractor for the mold growth which purportedly was caused by water which entered through the threshold of French doors installed in the family room of her home.

Claiming she was injured from exposure to mold, Gite abandoned her home and moved into a Beverly Hills hotel where she resided over the past two years and throughout the trial. Property allegedly left behind in the home, which went into foreclosure, included a chinchilla coat valued at $100,000, recording studio equipment together with all of her furniture, clothing and personal effects. Claiming all personal property had been subjected to
microbial contamination and was incapable of cleaning, Gite made a settlement demand prior to trial for $26 million. This included her claim for future loss of earnings due to her alleged inability to ever work again.

Despite the presence of stachybotrys, penicillium/aspergillus and a host of other molds, the defense successfully established the absence of any negligence.

During the course of the trial, Judge Cesar Sarmiento allowed all plaintiff medical experts to testify over vigorous objections that the testimony lacked foundation and was based on testing methodologies generally not acceptable under the Kelly-Frye doctrine. During trial, Dr. Gite lowered her settlement demand to one million. In closing arguments, plaintiff counsel simply asked the jury to award whatever they thought was reasonable in view of
the circumstances. Ultimately, the jury awarded plaintiff nothing.

"Jurors commented about the depth of work up on defenses to the property damage and bodily injury claims," said trial attorney Victoria Ersoff. Ms. Ersoff, a partner in the Los Angeles office of Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman stated that "even when all testimony comes into evidence, juries are able to separate the hype related to mold claims from reality."

Home Depot, represented by Ersoff, was voluntarily dismissed from the case on the eve of trial for a waiver of fees and costs. Ersoff then associated with Russell Franklin with the Schaeffer Lax firm to defend the sole remaining defendant at trial. West Hollywood lawyer Brian Witzer represented Dr. Gite at trial. For Ersoff, this is her second defense verdict in a mold bodily injury lawsuit in the last nine months.

Source: PR NewsWire

All trademarks and copyrighted information contained herein are the property of their respective owners.