In September 2013, plaintiff Steven Lopez learned that his home in Torrance was burglarized. In addition to thieves stealing a significant amount of personal property, they turned on the water in the upstairs bathroom, which caused flooding throughout the house. Lopez had a homeowner’s insurance policy with IDS Property Casualty Insurance Co. that should have covered the burglary and the water damage. However, Lopez claimed that after making a claim on his insurance policy, IDS acted in bad faith. Lopez sued the underwriter (a subsidiary of Ameriprise Financial Inc.), IDS Property Casualty Insurance Co., and IDS’s adjuster, Martin Summers. Summers was ultimately dismissed from the case. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that within a week of Lopez filing his claim, Lopez’s insurance company started a fraud investigation, despite there being a police report detailing the nature of the theft. Counsel also contended that Lopez had to initially hire a special property insurance attorney, Evangeline Grossman, in an attempt to force IDS to resolve the claim. However, plaintiff’s counsel argued that IDS only paid for minimal water damage, mold remediation, and insufficient repairs and that IDS initially refused to pay for the family to live elsewhere while the claim was adjusted and repairs were performed. Counsel further argued that after living away from his home for months, Lopez had no choice but to patch his home back together and return, even though IDS did not pay enough for Lopez to do the scope of repairs that his expert stated was necessary. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel noted that during the subject trial, over 3.5 years after the damage, IDS paid more than $60,000, claiming it just realized the house sustained more damage. Defense counsel argued that IDS acted reasonably, given the circumstances. Counsel contended that IDS paid everything it was obligated to pay under the policy and that it was unaware of further damage to the property until the plaintiff’s expert testified about it at trial. (The new information obtained from the plaintiff’s expert was the attribution of damage to water, rather than to mold.) Defense counsel argued that the fraud investigation was conducted because the claim occurred less than two weeks after the policy was issued. In addition, defense counsel noted that before the suit was filed, IDS paid the full amount of the estimates it had received for repairs to the home, the full amount of the policy’s mold limit, and seven months of rent for alternative housing. Counsel also argued that IDS offered to pay additional rental and meal expenses upon proof that such expenses had been incurred., Lopez, a single father of five, claimed that he suffered emotional distress from the ordeal. Thus, he sought recovery of damages for his emotional pain and suffering. He also sought recovery of unpaid living expenses and $187,000 to cover the remaining work needed to restore his home to its pre-loss condition.