|
4317 REVIEW DENIED When plaintiff retained defendant attorneys to represent her in an action for damage resulting from exposure to toxic mold, the statute of limitations had already run because outside the statutory period, plaintiff noticed water intrusion into her apartment and was informed twice by the landlord that there was mold in the building that could cause serious health problems characterized by flu-like effects, but ignored her own symptoms that included headaches, sinus infections, chronic fatigue, and respiratory ailments, and refused to let the landlord check her apartment because she did not believe the stains on her wall were mold, so the settlement defendants obtained for her was a windfall, and in a malpractice suit against them based on the claim that if they had not been negligent they would have obtained a greater settlement, plaintiff will be unable to establish damage.CitationSLOVENSKY v FRIEDMAN (Windfall Settlement) 142 CA4 1518 [See: CCP 335.1 (fmly 340); Kurinij v Hanna 55 CA4 853, T/AT 7/97]
|
|
