In 2004, plaintiff Darrellyn Robinson, an unemployed/disabled woman, moved into Section 8 housing administered by the Oakland Housing Authority. The building was constructed in 1906. Prior to Robinson moving in, her soon-to-be landlords, Mele Avoi and Abdellatif Habek, had the building painted by an unknown party, presumably a non-lead certified painter. In March 2005, Avoi and Habek sold the property to Michael Liu and Xiu Yu. At the time of the transfer of ownership, Robinson was three months pregnant with her first son, plaintiff Kavion Michael. Her second son, plaintiff Jayden Michael, was born two years later, in 2007, while she still resided at the subject property with Liu and Yu as the landlords. In 2009, Kavion and Jayden presented to their treating pediatricians with speech and developmental delay, and were subsequently found to have elevated blood lead levels. Promptly thereafter, the Alameda County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program discovered hazardous lead-based paint at the subject property. Before remediation could occur, and before Robinson and her sons could move out, the building caught fire and the Oakland Fire Department Investigation Report suspected arson. Robinson and Gwendolyn Smith, acting as Kavion’s and Jayden’s guardian ad litem, sued Liu, Yu, Habek and Avoi. Robinson and Smith alleged that the defendants failed to disclose the potential hazards of lead-based paint at the property, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 4852(d), which created a dangerous condition that injured the minor children. They also alleged that failing to remedy the lead-based paint constituted a breach of the implied warranty of habitability. First-in-time landlords Avoi and Habek were successful in early demurrers and motions to strike, resulting in the court precluding claims by the younger plaintiff, Jayden Michael, on the ground that he was not conceived during their ownership. All claims proceeded against defendants Liu and Yu. The defendants contended that they learned of the existence of lead-based paint at the property only years after the alleged exposure. However, all parties agreed that the Oakland Housing Authority inspected and approved the property, and provided warning of potential lead hazards to Robinson. In addition, all parties agreed that the defendants, themselves, failed to provide lead disclosures to Robinson. Counsel for Avoi and Habek filed a motion for summary judgment based in large part on Preston v. Goldman, 42 Cal. 3d 108 (1986), which prohibited tort-based liability to prior landowners no longer in control of the property. However, at oral arguments, plaintiffs’ counsel was successful in reversing the tentative ruling, and the court held that the jury could find that liability incurred in 2004 by Avoi and Habek negligently painting the building, which could have resulted in the injury to Kavion that was first substantiated in 2008-2009. According to counsel for Avoi and Habek, the trial judge realized during oral arguments that a partial grant of summary judgment would effectively preclude a damages claim against Avoi and Habek. Counsel for Avoi and Habek also noted that the judge was apprised that mediation would take place the next day, prior to posting his decision. Plaintiffs’ counsel abandoned the in utero theory of exposure since there was no evidence that Robinson had been exposed to lead while pregnant or otherwise., Kavion and Jayden suffered cognitive impairments as a result of their exposure to lead-based paint. Robinson alleged that as a result, her sons suffered speech and developmental delays. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that, based on State of California v. Continental Ins. Co., 55 Cal. 4th 186 (2012), Robinson and her sons were entitled to multiple policy years of insurance procured by Liu and Yu from 2005 to 2009. Thus, the plaintiffs’ experts opined that Kavion and Jayden will sustain tens of millions of dollars in damages based on their future loss of income and need for future care and therapy. Defense counsel contended that the , if any, to Kavion and Jayden were pre-existing and/or caused by something other than the lead-based paint at the property, such as genetics — as Robinson had a pre-existing developmental delay herself (and testimony suggested that the father of Kavion and Jayden did as well). Counsel also contended that home environment, socio-economic status, maternal education or exposure to lead from other sources, such as the plaintiffs’ next residence — which also tested positive for elevated lead soil levels — caused and/or contributed to Kavion’s and Jayden’s speech and developmental delay. Liu and Yu claimed that their maximum policy limit was $1 million and potentially only $500,000, based on reservations of rights asserted by the homeowner’s policy carrier. Avoi and Habek claimed that there was no coverage for their one applicable policy because there was no documented injury in 2004-05, during their ownership that policy year. In addition, all defendants claimed that they had no substantial assets, themselves.