Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
2
3
4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 JAMES JARDINE, an individual, ) Case Nos. 10-3335 SC,
) 10-3336 SC
8 Plaintiff, )
) Related Cases: 10-3018 SC,
9
v. ) 10-3019 SC
10 )
MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, a )
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
21 I. INTRODUCTION
2
Case3:10-cv-03319-SC Document21 Filed04/27/11 Page3 of 17
3
Case3:10-cv-03319-SC Document21 Filed04/27/11 Page4 of 17
4
Case3:10-cv-03319-SC Document21 Filed04/27/11 Page5 of 17
5
Case3:10-cv-03319-SC Document21 Filed04/27/11 Page6 of 17
6
Case3:10-cv-03319-SC Document21 Filed04/27/11 Page7 of 17
7
Case3:10-cv-03319-SC Document21 Filed04/27/11 Page8 of 17
8
Case3:10-cv-03319-SC Document21 Filed04/27/11 Page9 of 17
9
Case3:10-cv-03319-SC Document21 Filed04/27/11 Page10 of 17
10
Case3:10-cv-03319-SC Document21 Filed04/27/11 Page11 of 17
11
Case3:10-cv-03319-SC Document21 Filed04/27/11 Page12 of 17
12
Case3:10-cv-03319-SC Document21 Filed04/27/11 Page13 of 17
13
Case3:10-cv-03319-SC Document21 Filed04/27/11 Page14 of 17
14
Case3:10-cv-03319-SC Document21 Filed04/27/11 Page15 of 17
15
Case3:10-cv-03319-SC Document21 Filed04/27/11 Page16 of 17
1 wall and had spoken with Pardo about the damage. OneBeacon claims
2 that Cook's April 7, 2008 denial of Plaintiff's wall damage claim
3 was based on the fact that the damage occurred and was known to
4 Plaintiff seven months before the inception of the OneBeacon
5 policy. Id. at 4.
6 In response, Plaintiff argues that the damaged wall is
7 actually three separate walls separated by internal walls. 10-3336
8 Opp'n at 11-12. Plaintiff claims that no damage manifested on the
9 front section of the wall until after the OneBeacon policy
10 incepted, and cites the declaration of a structural engineer,
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
16
Case3:10-cv-03319-SC Document21 Filed04/27/11 Page17 of 17
17