Main Menu

Punches v. McCarrey Glen Apartments, LLC

TORT LAW

Margot Graham

In Punches v. McCarrey Glen Apartments, LLC, 480 P.3d 612 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that expert testimony is necessary to demonstrate personal injury from mold exposure and a tenant must make out a prima facie case that the property management company breached the habitability provision of the lease before conducting additional discovery. (Id. at 625, 622). Punches, a tenant in a building complex owned by of McCarrey Glen Apartments, LLC, sued McCarrey Glen Apartments, LLC for negligently failing to eradicate the mold in her apartment, resulting in personal injury and property damage. (Id. at 615). She argued this was a breach of the habitability provision of her lease. (Id. at 614). At trial, Punches did not produce expert testimony to support her claim that her personal injuries, including mucormycosis, a respiratory infection, skin abscesses, and chronic fatigue, resulted from exposure to mold. (Id. at 625). In fact, Punches did not provide sufficient evidence linking the mold to her injuries. (Id. at 622). The jury returned a verdict in favor of the apartment complex and the Superior Court entered judgment in accordance with the jury’s verdict. (Id. at 619). On appeal, Punches argued it was an abuse of discretion for the court to deny her motion to compel discovery and the court erred by granting partial summary judgment on her personal injury claim to the apartment complex. (Id. at 624). The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that Punches was required to make out her prima facie case in order to allow additional discovery and she needed to present expert testimony to overcome the motion for partial summary judgment. (Id. at 622, 624). Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that expert testimony is necessary to demonstrate personal injury from mold exposure and a tenant must make out a prima facie case that the property management company breached the habitability provision of the lease before conducting additional discovery (Id. at 625, 622).

 

Punches v. McCarrey Glen Apartments, LLC

TORT LAW

Margot Graham

In Punches v. McCarrey Glen Apartments, LLC, 480 P.3d 612 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that expert testimony is necessary to demonstrate personal injury from mold exposure and a tenant must make out a prima facie case that the property management company breached the habitability provision of the lease before conducting additional discovery. (Id. at 625, 622). Punches, a tenant in a building complex owned by of McCarrey Glen Apartments, LLC, sued McCarrey Glen Apartments, LLC for negligently failing to eradicate the mold in her apartment, resulting in personal injury and property damage. (Id. at 615). She argued this was a breach of the habitability provision of her lease. (Id. at 614). At trial, Punches did not produce expert testimony to support her claim that her personal injuries, including mucormycosis, a respiratory infection, skin abscesses, and chronic fatigue, resulted from exposure to mold. (Id. at 625). In fact, Punches did not provide sufficient evidence linking the mold to her injuries. (Id. at 622). The jury returned a verdict in favor of the apartment complex and the Superior Court entered judgment in accordance with the jury’s verdict. (Id. at 619). On appeal, Punches argued it was an abuse of discretion for the court to deny her motion to compel discovery and the court erred by granting partial summary judgment on her personal injury claim to the apartment complex. (Id. at 624). The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that Punches was required to make out her prima facie case in order to allow additional discovery and she needed to present expert testimony to overcome the motion for partial summary judgment. (Id. at 622, 624). Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that expert testimony is necessary to demonstrate personal injury from mold exposure and a tenant must make out a prima facie case that the property management company breached the habitability provision of the lease before conducting additional discovery (Id. at 625, 622).