Examples of Case Results

Most Cross & Associates case results are confidential and cannot be published, but the list of examples below provides a representative sample.

  • In 1997, the firm recovered over $600,000 in a government tort claim and property damage action against a municipality in San Bernardino County, California for a sewage flood that led to personal injuries caused by exposure to toxic mold.  Other Defendants that made substantial contributions to the settlement included a water damage restoration company and the company hired to manage the city’s sewer and wastewater system.  The Defendants alleged that the home was improperly constructed and that the Plaintiffs were poor housekeepers who failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate their damages.
  • In early 1998, the firm recovered $545,000 from a builder, property management company and homeowners’ association in lawsuit that included claims for strict liability for construction defects that led to plumbing leaks resulting in microbial contamination and illness caused by exposure to toxic mold.  The Defendants alleged that the case was barred by the statute of limitations and that the contamination, if any, was insignificant.
  • In 1999, the firm represented individuals who recovered nearly $1,000,000 in an Arizona toxic mold exposure case against a remediation contractor, among others, accused of negligent remediation and exacerbation of mold contamination in a large Tempe home.  ThePlaintiffs alleged that the use of fans and improper containment resulted in a distribution of millions of microscopic spores throughout the home. They alleged respiratory problems, psychological distress and neuropsychological injury as a result of their exposure to toxigenic fungi including Stachybotrys chartarum .  The Defendants alleged that the Plaintiffs’ conditions were pre-existing.
  • In 2000, the firm recovered $1,450,000 for indoor air quality issues related to aromatic candles.  The Orange County California Superior Court entered a Consent Judgment that included a Court Order prohibiting the sale of lead wicks in candles sold in California by the Defendants.  The Judgment also set forth specific labeling/warning requirements.  The claim was brought under a private attorney general statute on behalf of the people of the State of California pursuant to Proposition 65 (a labeling requirement for products that emit chemicals known by the State of California to cause cancer).  The Defendants alleged that their candles presented no significant risk of  cancer.  This was reported in the Los Angeles Times as the largest recovery of any Proposition 65 case in 2000.
  • In 2000, the firm recovered over $700,000 from a builder/developer for a family of three in Orange County who lived with leaks and moisture intrusion problems caused by a variety of construction defects, including faulty windows. The family had complained to the builder about water intrusion, and the builder made multiple visits to the home in an alleged effort to address the problem. In that case, a young child was suffering from chronic respiratory and mucous membrane conditions labeled “colds” by treating physicians. Only two of the three occupants alleged illness as a result of the exposure. The father alleged no symptoms. However, the Defendant agreed to pay $700,000 and no lawsuit was necessary.   The Defendant alleged that the Plaintiffs should have run a fan in their closet to prevent mold growth.
  • In 2001, the firm recovered over $259,000 in a case against a homeowners’ association, a property management company and a water damage restoration company for extremely severe mold contamination caused to a two-bedroom condominium in Newport Beach, California after a flood from the unit above caused massive amounts of water to inundate the unit below while the owners were out of town for a month.  They returned to thousands of square feet of visible mold, which (fortunately) made the problem obvious enough such that they never slept in the unit again and consequently suffered no mold-related illnesses.  The Defendants alleged that the Plaintiffs failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate their damages.
  • In 2005, the firm recovered $650,000 from the general contractor who built an upscale contemporary custom home in the Rustic Canyon area of Pacific Palisades, California.  The home was architecturally complex and sustained water intrusion in a number of areas.  However, experts for the general contractor testified that the homeowners’ costs of repair were excessive, and that some of the repairs were unnecessary.
  • In 2006, the firm successfully defended a Certified Industrial Hygienist and his consulting company charged with negligently inspecting a residence in Huntington Beach.  The company was hired by a general contractor performing mold remediation.  The company conducted environmental sampling and issued a letter which the Plaintiff homeowners contended was flawed and failed to properly identify existing environmental hazards.  The homeowners returned to the property after the remediation and contended that they suffered extensive illness and personal injuries as a result of exposure to the environmental hazards the company was hired to detect.  Through motions filed by Cross & Associates, the court awarded sanctions against Plaintiffs’ counsel.  Although Plaintiffs alleged that the company was liable for  $16.5 million dollars in damages, Cross & Associates was able to favorably settle the matter for a waiver of sanctions and zero payment to the plaintiff homeowners. 

Each case turns on its own facts. Every case is different and the results of your case will be different from those above.