The largest asbestos fine ever levied in San Diego County is settled for less than 8% of the total fines assessed. How did this happen? See the narrative for a first-hand account of the details.
An elderly couple owned a one-story commercial rental property in a modest area of town. The interior and exterior of the building needed paint, new fixtures, wall coverings and generally a “ sprucing up “ of the property for potential new tenants. The couple hired a contractor they had used before. He had business cards indicating “ contractor “ and he had done work for other people the couple knew. After starting the job, he called the couple and suggested removing the old “ popcorn “ ceiling. They said go ahead. Unfortunately, the ceiling was filled with asbestos, though of the Chrysotile variety. The contractor and his brother then took all of the asbestos in their truck to the local landfill, ignoring all of the regulations for asbestos removal. After they arrived at the landfill, one of the inspectors called the county and they in turn called the couple.
The wife of the couple went to the landfill that same day and attempted to get abatement people to clean up the asbestos. Due to the representations of the City, and later the County, the asbestos was not abated for almost a week.
Because the husband attempted to water the parking area of the building after being informed of the asbestos, the County piled on another six-figure set of fines.
The City then fined the couple for their “ administrative costs “ of roughly $1900. There was a hearing without counsel present, and the wife testified. After the hearing, the hearing officer called the contractor, who was supposedly back in Mexico, and on the basis of the out- of- hearing statement of the contractor, found against the couple.
The couple was sued by the County on behalf of the APCD, in superior court for the maximum fines possible, not their original fines of $660,000.00. The contractor was never named or sued in the case. The City was also never named in the suit.
Cross-complaints for civil rights violations against the County and City, as well as against the contractor who claimed to be in Mexico were all prepared. In the interim, a settlement discussion in detail was held with the County. The County attorney involved was experienced and listened to the fact pattern, well-documented by the defendants. After some negotiation, the matter was settled for $50,000.
Some very highly qualified experts were hired in three areas. They were important for potential testimony at trial about the dangers, if any, of small amounts of Chrysotile asbestos in the product removed from the ceiling.
Because of the draconian nature of the statutes in this area, a very aggressive defense must be mounted at the beginning of every case of this type.
The wife of the couple went to the landfill that same day and attempted to get abatement people to clean up the asbestos. Due to the representations of the City, and later the County, the asbestos was not abated for almost a week.
Because the husband attempted to water the parking area of the building after being informed of the asbestos, the County piled on another six-figure set of fines.
The City then fined the couple for their “ administrative costs “ of roughly $1900. There was a hearing without counsel present, and the wife testified. After the hearing, the hearing officer called the contractor, who was supposedly back in Mexico, and on the basis of the out- of- hearing statement of the contractor, found against the couple.
The couple was sued by the County on behalf of the APCD, in superior court for the maximum fines possible, not their original fines of $660,000.00. The contractor was never named or sued in the case. The City was also never named in the suit.
Cross-complaints for civil rights violations against the County and City, as well as against the contractor who claimed to be in Mexico were all prepared. In the interim, a settlement discussion in detail was held with the County. The County attorney involved was experienced and listened to the fact pattern, well-documented by the defendants. After some negotiation, the matter was settled for $50,000.
Some very highly qualified experts were hired in three areas. They were important for potential testimony at trial about the dangers, if any, of small amounts of Chrysotile asbestos in the product removed from the ceiling.
Because of the draconian nature of the statutes in this area, a very aggressive defense must be mounted at the beginning of every case of this type.
RSS Feed