Eva Geffcken and Alexander M. Geffcken v. Samuel D'Andrea, et al

Result: On April 2, 2004 we settled all claims against our clients for $16,000 new money after a demand in excess of $1,250,000 at the beginning of trial in late March 2004.

This case was a construction defect related personal injury case brought by Ms. Eva Geffcken and her teenage son, Alexander, due to alleged exposure to indoor mold. The Geffcken matter was a companion case to the El Escorial Owners' Association v. Santa Barbara Villas, L.L.P., et al, construction defect case.

In Geffcken, our firm represented the general contractor, Investec Construction Inc., and on the eve of trial, substituted in as trial counsel for the developer of the El Escorial Condominium project, Santa Barbara Villas, LLP, and its successor in interest, Investec Equities, Inc. Plaintiff Eva Geffcken alleged that she had developed lung cancer in her right lung as a direct result of exposure to indoor molds. Additionally, both Ms. Geffcken and her son alleged neuropsychological injuries due to mold exposure. The Plaintiffs' demand to our clients on the first day of trial was $1,250,000. Pursuant to our pre-trial motions challenging the qualifications of the Plaintiffs' retained medical and mold/construction experts, as well as the foundation for their opinions, the trial court held evidentiary hearings to address these issues. Following Messrs. O’Callaghan and Lunsford’s cross-examination of Plaintiffs' mold sampling/construction expert, the Plaintiffs dropped their demand to our clients to $500,000, which was later reduced to $150,000 during trial and ultimately accepted $16,000 from our client and the $84,000 we had obtained through settlements with various subcontractors. As part of the settlement, the cross-complaint against the remaining, non-settling subcontractors was assigned to the Plaintiff. On the final day of the evidentiary hearings, the trial court ruled that it was not generally accepted in the medical/scientific community that exposure to indoor mold causes health problems. Significantly, the trial court ruled that Gary Ordog, M.D., a very active medical expert for plaintiffs in mold cases in the Western United States, was not qualified to render any opinions regarding the potential health effects of exposure to mold. We believe this case represents the first time Dr. Ordog has failed to qualify as an medical expert witness in mold litigation.