Complaint Unlimited Fee AppliesCal. Super. - 6th Dist.March 30, 2021\oooqmmgmm.‘ NNNNNNNNNF-‘H mqoxm-hmmwoxooozaazafi:a E-FILED 3/30/2021 4:24 PM Clerk of Court Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara 21 CV381 528 Robert E. Wall SBN 1081 14) Reviewed By: V_ Taylor THE GRUNSK LAW FIRM PC 240 West ate Drive Watsonvi le, CA 95076 Telephone 83 1)722-2444 Facsunile ( 31 722-6153 rewalléi'gruns .vlaw.com Attorne s for Plaintiff, CALIF RNIA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA CALIFORNIA MUTUAL INSURANCE N021 CV381 528 COMPANY’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES IN Plaintiff, SUBROGATION v. JOHNSON CONTROLS lc., a foreign public limited com any, A TOT L FIRE PROTECTI N COMPANY, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS Plaintifl', CALIFORNIA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY (hereinafier “CMIC”), alleges as follows: 1. PlaintiffCMIC is, and was at all times relevant to the subject litigation, a California corporation duly licensed by the Insurance Commissioner of the State of California to engage in the insurance business in this state. 2. Americas Best Value Inn Sunnyvale (hereinafier the “INSURED”) is, and was at all times relevant to the subject litigation, the owner of a hotel located at 33 1 -385 East Weddell Drive, Sunnyvale, California 94086 (hereinafier “HOTEL”). -1- CMSU25767(Americas Best)\Pleadings\Complaint CMIC v. JOHNSON CONTROLSplc, et a1. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES IN SUBROGATION \OOOQCNUI#UJNr-‘ NNNNNNNNNHp-Av-Ir-Iu-Ir-IHI-AHH OONCNM$UJNHOOOOQQMhUJNHO 3. At all times relevant to the subject litigation, INSUREDS’ HOTEL was insured by PlaintiffCMIC under an insurance policy obligating PlaintiffCMIC to indemnify INSURED against loss or damage to the insured HOTEL due t0 water damage and other risks. 4. Plaintiff CMIC is infomed and believes and thereupon alleges that Defendant JOHNSON CONTROLS plc (hereinafler “JCI”) is a public limited company incorporated in Ireland, with its principle place ofbusiness in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, doing business in the State of California, including in Santa Clara County. 5. PlaintiffCMIC is informed and believes and thereupon alleges Defendant JCI is the corporate successor to Central Sprinkler Company (hereinafier “CSC”), its corporate predecessor and the manufacturer, marketer, distn'butor, and/or seller 0f fire sprinklers, including a CSC Model LF 3.0 Pendant Fire Sprinkler, for use in California residential properties, including hotels, and that Defendant JCI is thereby vicariously liable for the products liability and negligence of its corporate predecessor CSC. 6. Plaintiff CMIC is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Defendant A TOTAL FIRE PROTECTION COMPANY, INC. (hereinafter “A TOTAL FIRE”) is, and was at all times relevant to the subject litigation, a California Corporation and licensed general building, fire protection and plumbing contractor providing fire sprinkler maintenance, inspection and testing services in the State of California, including in Santa Clara County. 7. PlaintiffCMIC is iglorant of the true names and capacities of the defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 20, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to show their true names and capacities when ascertained. 8. PlaintiffCMIC is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that defendants, and each ofthem named herein, including fictitiously named defendants DOES 1 through 20, are and were at all times relevant t0 the subj ect litigation the agents, employees, partners, and/or joint venturers of the other named defendants, and in doing the things herein alleged, acted with the purpose and scope of said agency, employment, partnership, and/or joint venture; and, the acts of each defendant were authorized and/or ratified by each other defendants. 9. Plaintiff CMIC is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that during original _ 2 _ CMSU25767(Americas Best)\PIeadings\CompIaint CMIC v. JOHNSON CONTROLSplc, et al. COMPLAINT FORDAMAGES IN SUBROGATION \DOOQO‘xUI-PUJNH NNNNNNNNNHp-AHHu-r-u-at-AHi-t OOQQMAWNHODOOQG‘JlkmNfio construction of the HOTEL in approximately 1999-2000, Defendant JCI’s corporate predecessor CSC manufactured, marketed, distributed, and/or sold CSC Model LF 3.0 Pendant Fire Sprinklers for installation throughout INSURED’s HOTEL. 10. PlaintiffCMIC is informed and believes that Defendant A TOTAL FIRE was hired to perform regular maintenance, inspection and monitoring of all fire sprinklers installed throughout INSURED’S HOTEL and has performed these services since approximately 2000. 11. PlaintiffCMIC is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that on or about September 7, 2020, a CSC Model LF 3.0 Pendant Fire Sprinkler installed in a guest room of INSURED’s HOTEL (hereinafier the “SUBJECT SPRINKLER”) falsely activated and discharged due to defects in the desigl, manufacture, and/or failure to warn in the SUBJECT SPRINKLER. 12. Plaintiff CMIC is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that the defects in the SUBJECT SPRINKLER that caused it to falsely activate and discharge were or should have been observable dun'ng reasonable regular maintenance, inspection and monitoring of fire sprinklers installed throughout INSURED’s HOTEL. 13. As a direct and proximate result of the false activétion and discharge of the SUBJECT SPRINKLER on September 7, 2020, INSURED, and by subrogation Plaintiff CMIC, suffered significant property damages, including property damage to the HOTEL and its contents and loss of use, in an amount in excess of $133,300 to be proven at trial. 14. As a direct and proximate result of the false activation and discharge of the SUBJECT SPRINKLER on September 7, 2020 and resulting damages, PlaintiffCMIC has made payments to 0r on behalf ofINSURED in an amount in excess of $133,300 to be proven at trial, less INSURED’S $2,500 deductible, and to the extent of said payments became subrogated to all ofINSURED’s rights and is entitled to enforce all INSURED’s remedies against any and all Defendants herein. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY (Against Defendants JCI and DOES l through 10 ) 15. PlaintiffCMIC re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 14 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. - 3 _ CMsu25767(Americas Best)\PIeadings\Complaint CMC v. JOHNSON CONTROLSplc, et al. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1N SUBROGATION \OOOQQU‘I-wap-n NNNNNNNNNt-Ar-Ih-tp-IHp-Ir-Ip-IHn-A OOfloUl-bUJNHOKDOONQUI-hWNHO 16. PlaintiffCMIC is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that the SUBJECT SPRINKLER, and/or a component part(s) thereof, was defective in its design, manufacture and/or failure to warn when it was manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold and/or installed by Defendant JCI’s corporate predecessor and DOES 1 through 10. 17. Defendant JCI’s corporate predecessor CSC and DOES 1 through 10 placed the SUBJECT SPRINKLER on the market in the ordinary course and scope of their business as the manufacturer, marketer, distributor, seller and/or installer of the SUBJECT SPRINKLER. 18. Defendant JCI’s corporate predecessor CSC and DOES 1 through 10 knew, or should have known, that the SUBJECT SPRINKLER, and its component part(s) thereof, would be used by residential home and hotel owners without inspection for defects. 19. PlaintiffCMIC is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that the SUBJECT SPRINKLER, and/or (a) component part(s) thereof, as manufactured, marketed, distn'buted, sold and/or installed by Defendant JCI’s corporate predecessor CSC and DOES 1 through 10 was defective and unsafe for its intended purposes. 20. Plaintiff CMIC is informed and believesvand thereupon alleges that INSURED at all times used the SUBJECT SPRINKLER in the manner intended. 21. Until the SUBJECT SPRINKLER, 0r (a) component part(s) thereof, failed, thereby causing the September 7, 2020 false activation and discharge and resulting damages, INSURED was unaware of its defective and unsafe condition. 22. The false activation and discharge and ofthe SUBJECT SPRINKLER on September 7, 2020 and resulting damages were a direct and proximate result of the above-described defects in the SUBJECT SPRINKLER, and/or (a) component part(s) thereof. 23. As a direct and proximate result of the defects that caused the false activation and discharge ofthe SUBJECT SPRINKLER on September 7, 2020, INSURED, and by subrogation Plaintiff CMIC, suffered sigfificant property damages, including property damage to the HOTEL and its contents and loss of use, in an amount in excess of $133,300 to be proven at tn'al. 24. INSURED’S and by subrogated Plaintiff CMIC’s propexty damages are compensable in monetary damages. CMSU25767(Americas Best)\Pleadings\Complaint CMIC v. JOHNSON CONTROLSplc, et al. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES IN SUBROGATION \DOOQONUI-bUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHr-IHb-tp-Ah-ap-Ar-Ap-I WQGUI#UJNP-‘O\DOOQQU1hWN’-‘O SECOND CAUSE 0F ACTION NEGLIGENCE (Against Defendant JCI and DOES 1 through 10) 25. PlaintiffCMIC re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 26. PlaintiffCMIC is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Defendant A TOTAL FIRE PROTECTION COMPANY, INC. (hereinafier “A TOTAL FIRE”) is, and was at all times relevant to the subject litigation, a California Corporation and licensed general building, fire protection and plumbing contractor providing fire sprinkler maintenance, inspection and testing services in the State of California, including in Santa Clara County. 27. Defendant JCI’s corporate predecessor CSC and DOES 1 through 10 breached their respective duties by negligently manufacturing, marketing, distn'buting, selling and/or installing the SUBJECT SPRINKLER, such that it was in an unreasonably defective and/or unsafe condition when it was installed in INSURED’S HOTEL. 28. As a direct and proximate result 0f Defendant JCI’s corporate predecessor CSC’S and DOES 1 through 10’s breach of their respective duties not to provide defective fire sprinklers to the public, INSURED, and by subrogation Plaintiff CMIC, suffered significant property damages, including property damage to the HOTEL and its contents and loss of use, in an amount in excess 0f $133,300 to be proven at trial. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE (Against Defendant A TOTAL FIRE and DOES 11 through 20) 29. Plaintiff CMIC re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 28 0f this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 30. Defendant A TOTAL FIRE and DOES 11 through 20 are, and were at all times relevant to the subj ect litigation, licensed general building, fire protection and plumbing contractors providing fire sprinkler maintenance, inspection and testing services in residential homes and hotels, including INSURED’S HOTEL. CMSU25767(Americas Best)\Pleadings\Comp|aint CMIC v. JOHNSON CONTROLSplc, et al. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES IN SUBROGATION \OOOVONUILUJNr-n NNNNNNNNNF‘HHr-AHr-At-IHh-IH OOQONUILUJNHOKOOOQQM-PUJNi-‘O 3 1. As such licensed general building, fire protection and plumbing contractors providing fire sprinkler maintenance, inspection and testing services in residential homes and hotels, Defendant A TOTAL FIRE and DOES 11 through 20 owed duties to perform these services with the ordinary and reasonable degree of care required of a prudent general building, fire protection and plumbing contractor under the circumstances. 32. Defendant A TOTAL FIRE and DOES 11 through 20 breached their respective duties by to perform fire sprinkler maintenance, inspection and testing services in INSURED’s HOTEL with the ordinary and reasonable degree of care required of a prudent general building, fire protection and plumbing contractor under the circumstances, and in particular, failing to the defects in the SUBJECT SPRINKLER that caused it to falsely activate and discharge which should have been observable during the reasonable regular maintenance, inspection and monitoring of fire sprinklers installed throughout INSURED’s HOTEL. 33. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant A TOTAL FIRE’s and DOES 11 through 20’s breach of their respective duties not perform fire sprinkler maintenance, inspection and testing services in INSURED’S HOTEL With the ordinary and reasonable degree 0f care required of a prudent general building, fire protection and plumbing contractor under the circumstances, INSURED, and by subrogation Plaintiff CMIC, suffered significant property damages, including property damage to the HOTEL and its contents and loss of use, in an amount in excess of $133,300 to be proven at trial. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION EQUITABLE SUBROGATION (Against All Defendants) 34. PlaintiffCMIC re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 33 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 35. Pursuant to the contract for insurance between CMIC and INSURED, PlaintiffCMIC has made property damage claims payments in an amount in excess of $133,300 to be proven at trial, and to the extent of said payments became subrogated to all ofINSUREDS’ rights and is entitled to enforce all remedies against any and all Defendants herein. _ 5 _ CMSU25767(Americas Best)\PIeadings\Complaint CMIC v. JOHNSON CONTROLSplc, et al. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES IN SUBROGATION DOO‘QOUI-bUJNH NNNNNNNNNt-II-II-p-ip-twwp-ap-n-n OOQONUIAwNI-‘OKOOOQONm-wah-‘O PRAYER WHEREFORE,’ PlaintiffCMIC prays for judgment as follows: 1. For the amount paid by PlaintiffCMIC to or on behalfofINSURED in an amount in excess of $133, 300 to be proven at trial within the unlimited jurisdiction of the ocurt; 2. For the sum of $2,500.00 being the deductible paid by INSURED; For pre-judgment interest according to law;3 4. For costs of suit; and 5 For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. DATED: March 2i, 2021 By CMSU25767¢Americas Best)\Pleadings\Complaint CMIC v. JOHNSON CONTROLSplc, et al. COMPLAmT FOR DAMAGES IN SUBROGATION THE GRUNSKY LAW FIRM PCW Robert E. Wall, Attorne s for Plaintiff, CALIF RNIA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY