Opinion ID: 1346801
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Annessa Letter

Text: According to copies of e-mails supplied by the parties before us, Richmond renewed its remediation efforts after the Joy suit was filed. Richmond's counsel retained to defend the company in the Joy suit sent an e-mail in March 2009 to Mr. Skinner asking for a list of clients who had not yet had active radon systems installed in their homes. In an April 2009 e-mail, Richmond's retained counsel attached a draft letter for Mr. Skinner's clients from Richmond's President, Patrick Annessa, outlining Richmond's offer to arrange for the installation of active radon detection systems. In that e-mail, Richmond's counsel asked: Please let me know by Tuesday (4/14/09) if you will accept the letter on behalf of your clients or if Mr. Annessa should send a letter to each of your clients directly. Mr. Skinner's colleague, Laura Davis, responded by return e-mail disputing portions of the letter and stating: I cannot agree to permit this communication to be sent directly to represented parties in the litigation. I agree that it is wise to formalize the terms of remediation in writing. However, I would prefer that you do so in correspondence to us as opposed to our clients. According to the affidavits of two of the attorneys retained to represent Richmond dated August 27, 2009, negotiations regarding the contents of the letter continued, but Respondents' counsel never accepted the letter on behalf of their clients nor did they agree to give the letter to their clients. In June 2009, [8] a letter signed by Mr. Annessa [9] was sent to at least eleven of the sixteen families involved in the Joy case. [10]