-8-
from them of $23,065. In December 2001, petitioner and Ms. Davis
filed a counterclaim (custom house litigation counterclaim) in
the custom house litigation in which petitioner and Ms. Davis
alleged, inter alia, that Mona Builders violated the Maryland
Custom Home Protection Act and breached the custom house con-
tract.
On June 7, 2002, petitioner sent a letter (June 7, 2002
letter) by certified mail, return receipt requested, to State
Auto. That letter stated in pertinent part:
We are involved in litigation with Mona Builders
and Developers, Inc. (Mona), the company that built our
house. A copy of our Amended Counter-Complaint is
attached. As part of that litigation, we recently
discovered serious structural problems with our house.
We have been told by our experts that Mona failed to
build our house in compliance with the architectural
drawings that were part of our agreement with them. At
present we do not know the full extent of the problems,
nor do we have cost estimates for necessary remedial
action. * * *
We understand that Mona purchased from the State
Auto Insurance Companies a commercial general liability
policy, and an excess liability umbrella policy, to
cover the construction of our house. The number of
those policies is PBP1005193. We do not know whether
Mona has notified the State Auto Ins. Companies of the
pending litigation and our claims against Mona.
(We shall refer to petitioner’s claim to any of the proceeds from
the insurance policies that State Auto issued to Mona Builders in
connection with the construction of the custom house as peti-
tioner’s insurance claim.)
On November 8, 2002, petitioner and Ms. Davis sent a letter
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011