On Oct. 23, 2013, plaintiff Gerry Seelman, 80, a public works engineer, and his wife, plaintiff Sally Seelman, 78, hired a cleaning company, Coit Services Inc., to remove a trail of oily foot prints from the carpeting throughout their home in San Marcos. Mr. Seelman previously returned home from a long day’s work with some black, oily substance left on his shoes. As a result, he accidently created the trail of oily foot prints throughout his home. When the Seelmans couldn’t get the spots out with a Dirt Devil garage vacuum, they called Coit Services Inc. the next morning. The technicians from Coit Services then showed up, evaluated the condition, and indicated they’d have to use their “strongest chemical” to remove the spots from the carpeting. The chemical is known as P.O.G., which stands for Paint, Oil and Grease Remover, and is manufactured by a company called ChemSpec. After getting approval from the Seelmans to proceed with the work, a Coit Services technician proceeded to douse the home with the P.O.G. chemical on Oct. 23, 2013. Four hours later, when the technician was done, he advised the Seelmans to air out the home by leaving the doors and windows open. However, the Seelmans claimed that when they closed up the home that night, they suffered a severe toxic reaction to the chemicals, resulting in a burning sensation to their skin and eyes. They also claimed they began to break out in rashes. The Seelmans called Coit Services the first thing the following morning, and they were allegedly informed, for the first time, by way of a Safety Data Sheet that was provided by the company, that P.O.G. and its components consisted of a severely toxic chemical that can result in significant respiratory, eye, and skin reactions to human beings exposed to it. The Seelmans sued Coit Services, alleging that Coit Services’ actions constituted negligence and a private nuisance. Defense counsel contended that Coit Services’ employee properly applied the P.O.G. product to the carpeting in the Seelmans’ home and that its employees were industry leaders in carpet cleaning. Counsel also contended that air quality sampling taken approximately six months after the initial exposure showed no signs of the P.O.G. chemical inside the Seelmans’ home. In addition, defense counsel contended that the Seelmans consented to the carpet treating, knew that a strong chemical was being used, and were negligent in failing to advise Coit Services of their hypersensitivity to chemicals., After multiple attempts by Coit Services to repair the problem and wash the chemical from the home, the Seelmans had to employ professional remediation contractors. However, the Seelmans alleged that the volatile organic compounds within the P.O.G. became aerosolized and, eventually, imbedded into the flooring and building materials of the home. Thus, the Seelmans claimed that they continued to have toxic reactions whenever they stayed in the home and that as a result, they ultimately had to relocate from their home several weeks after the first exposure. The Seelmans paid $400 for the initial job, but incurred over $200,000 in remediation expenses and nearly $100,000 in relocation expenses, as their home was torn down to its studs over the ensuing 16 months. During that time, and up until the home was finally remediated, Ms. Seelman allegedly suffered a toxic response each time she stepped foot in the home. The immuno-response is known as chemical sensitization wherein even trace amounts of a toxic chemical can cause full-blown allergic response to the affected individual. As a result, the Seelmans had to seek medical treatment approximately six times during the period when their home was being remediated. Approximately 18 months after the initial exposure, the Seelmans finally returned to their home. Since then, they continue to be symptom free. Thus, the Seelmans sought recovery of $290,000 in remediation and repair expenses and $600,000 in general damages for their emotional distress and mental suffering, as well as for the interference with their use and enjoyment of their home. (The Seelmans did not seek recovery of the negligible expenses generated as a result of their medical treatment.) Defense counsel argued that that all medical testing, including blood and urine samples taken of the Seelmans by their treating physicians, showed no evidence of the P.O.G. chemical and compounds.