 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Solick v. Dep't of Revenue3/8/2005
DECISION
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's appeal of Defendant's denial of her casualty loss claim for tax year 2001. Case management conferences were held on October 4, 2004, November 8, 2004, and December 15, 2004. Plaintiff represented herself. Defendant was represented by Michael Hamilton, of its staff. At request of the parties, the record was closed following the final case management conference.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
The court finds the following facts based upon the submissions and arguments presented by the parties. In 2001, Plaintiff and her family became seriously ill with symptoms such as headaches, nosebleeds, wheezing, and coughing. In May of that year, Plaintiff learned of something called "toxic mold" when she happened to see a television program describing the same symptoms in a family who had lost their home to toxic mold contamination. Although she had completed an extensive remodel of her kitchen, bathroom, and one other room between 1998 and 2000 and found no signs of mold, Plaintiff hired an environmental service to inspect her home. By the end of the month she received its report stating that toxic molds were present, likely due to a windstorm that had blown away several shingles in an area of the roof not easily seen.
Fortunately for Plaintiff, her homeowners' insurance policy had been purchased prior to the now-standard exclusion of losses due to toxic mold and her insurer immediately financed several attempted cures. However, when the environmental service removed and replaced sheetrock and insulation from a wall in the baby's room and treated the studs, toxic mold covered the treated studs again within 24 hours. On June 18, 2004, Plaintiff's insurer had her roof completely replaced, again to no avail. Within four days the environmental service determined that the toxic mold was systemic and, on June 22, 2001, Plaintiff's insurer financed the family's evacuation.
Plaintiff's testimony regarding the shock and trauma of learning about toxic mold and finding herself and her family stripped of home and possessions within a two-month period of time was very credible. It is substantiated by environmental reports and the actions taken by her insurer. Plaintiff's insurer gave her the choice of having the loss of her home or the loss of her personal property covered by her homeowners' policy. Plaintiff chose to be reimbursed for the loss of her home. Thinking that there was no hope of coverage for her possessions, Plaintiff did not take photographs. Because paper is a prime medium for growing molds, Plaintiff retained no receipts from which the value of the property she lost could be ascertained.
Although her doctors, her insurance company, and both environmental services told Plaintiff that all personal property that could not be disinfected by submersion in a bleach solution would have to be left behind, Plaintiff could not believe that she would have to give up everything she owned. She described trying to save a wooden bedframe by bleaching the wood and then painting it before moving it into her rental home, but the nose bleeds, headaches, and coughing renewed within days. Not even her son's saxophones could be decontaminated. Few items could be saved; Plaintiff testified that she spent hundreds of dollars disposing of her possessions at the local dump. By August 7, 2002, the City of Ashland issued a permit for the demolition of Plaintiff's home; the building and everything too large to haul to the dump were burned to the ground.
After the fact, Plaintiff learned that the loss of her personal property could qualify as a casualty loss on her tax return for that year; she estimated her loss a
Page 1 2 3 4 Oregon Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|