On Nov. 2, 2011, plaintiff James Carver, 37, an electrician for Noble Electric, was working on a construction job site, in Mentone, when a 150-pound air conditioning unit fell on him. He subsequently sustained an injury of his left shoulder. Plaintiff Markel Insurance Co., the workers’ compensation insurance company that provided workers’ compensation coverage for Noble Electric employees at time of the incident, brought a subrogation suit against the company that installed the subject air conditioning unit, Controlled Environment HVAC Inc.; Controlled Environment’s owner, Ors Gyene; and the general contractor, Walden Structures Inc. Carver also brought his own suit against Controlled Environment; Gyene; and Walden Structures. Carver also sued the owner of the premises, 800 Opal, LLC; and employees of Controlled Environment who were present at the time of the incident, Julian Martinez and Nivan Cordero. Carver alleged that the defendants were negligent in the installation of the air conditioner and for failing to ensure a safe workplace. The matters were ultimately consolidated. Carver was an employee of Noble Electric, a subcontractor on the job site. Pursuant to the Privette line of cases, an employee of a subcontractor is precluded from bringing an action against a general contractor unless there is evidence of negligence on the part of that general contractor. However, in Carver’s case, there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the general contractor, Walden Structures As a result, Walden Structures was dismissed from the case on a motion for summary judgment. Likewise, 800 Opal was dismissed on a motion for summary judgment on a similar basis as Walden Structures. Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that the installation of the subject AC unit failed because an employee of Controlled Environment forgot to place washers over the nuts that held the AC unit into place. Counsel contended that the use of washers would have prevented the air conditioning unit from sliding off the nuts and striking Carver. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Controlled Environment refused to disclose the identity of its employee(s) who improperly installed the air conditioning unit, claiming that no one could recall who installed the subject air conditioning unit, but during discovery, it was disclosed that Martinez and Cordero were present at the time of the incident. However, Cordero was never able to be served with the lawsuit and, as such, Cordero was dismissed from the case prior to the trial. Martinez was served, and an answer was filed on his behalf by the insurance carrier for Controlled Environment, but Martinez’s deposition testimony revealed that he was not the installer. Accordingly, Martinez was dismissed from the case during trial. Thus, the matter only continued against Controlled Environment and its owner, Gyene. At trial, plaintiff’s counsel argued that the air conditioning unit was improperly installed by employees of Controlled Environment and that the unit fell from the ceiling and struck Carver due to the negligence of those employees. Thus, counsel argued that Controlled Environment and Gyene were liable for the negligent actions of their employees. Defense counsel for Controlled Environment and Gyene contended that there were no witnesses to what took place and that Carver was a convicted felon, so his story should not be believed. Counsel also argued that the subject air conditioning unit was installed properly and that Carver was the one who caused it to fall from a ceiling height onto himself., Carver was struck on his left, non-dominant shoulder. He subsequently drove himself to a hospital for treatment. However, Carver had no follow up medical treatment for 104 days, as he had to report to jail to serve time on an earlier criminal conviction. He was ultimately diagnosed with adhesive capsulitis (frozen shoulder) and he underwent two surgeries to his left shoulder, which took place over a two-year period. Carver claimed that he was off of work for a total of 18 months as a result of his injury. He also claimed that he may require another shoulder surgery for adhesion release. Markel Insurance paid $124,951.68 for Carver’s past medical costs and past lost earnings. Thus, it sought recovery of the amount it paid for Carver’s past economic loss. Carver sought recovery of $120,000 in future economic loss. He also sought recovery of damages for his past and future pain and suffering. In total, counsel for Markel Insurance and Carver asked the jury for the total sum of $975,000. Defense counsel argued that not only did the incident not take place as it was alleged, but that all of Carver’s alleged shoulder issues were pre-existing.