- 30 -
testify about or have notes on each item on her list, based on
her testimony, notes and receipts, and Cohn’s testimony, we
should conclude that she prepared an honest inventory of her
damaged property.
Respondent argues that we should not consider Cohn's
appraisal because he did not see petitioner’s personal property
or photographs of property, and he lacked information about some
of the items. We agree in part and disagree in part. Cohn
appeared to be knowledgeable, and he readily disclosed the limits
inherent in the methodology he used. On the other hand, Cohn
lacked necessary information, such as the age, original cost, or
pre-earthquake fair market value of some of petitioner’s items.
He incorrectly assumed that none of the property had salvage
value. Cohn did not know the size of or the number of lights in
the chandeliers, or the amount of crystal in them. He did not
know the height, type, quality, or condition of the grandfather
clock. He did not know the size or quality of the antique bells
or whether they were made of metal. Cohn valued 20 books at $20
per book without knowing their titles, age, or condition.
Petitioner’s estimates of the amount of her personal
property damage were flawed in part. She used the wrong year
of purchase for a few of the items. The refrigerator, stove,
carpeting, and the entrance hall chandelier had all been in the
unit since it was built in 1982, yet petitioner listed the date
of purchase as 1988, the year she bought the condominium.
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011