Opinion ID: 670306
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Nature of Damages Sought in Underlying Suit

Text: We reject the Insurers' argument that coverage is precluded because the underlying complaint sought repayment of all rent paid by the plaintiff class between January 22, 1988 and August 4, 1989. The underlying complaint makes clear that the damages sought were not restitutionary, but compensatory and punitive: WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court: a. [A]ward the plaintiff class compensatory damages in an amount to be proved at trial, including but not limited to all rent paid by the plaintiff class between January 22, 1988 and August 4, 1989; b. [A]ward the plaintiff class punitive damages in the amount of $10 million. See Stoiber, 101 Cal.App.3d at 922 (tort claim by tenant for breach of statutory duty sought, among other relief, compensatory damages for the discomfort and annoyance she suffered and for injury to her tenancy interest (right to habitable premises) which is a species of property). Whether or not these damages are paid with funds the Policyholders received in the form of rent from the tenants, nothing distinguishes them from standard tort damages typically covered under the personal injury provision of an insurance policy.