You're Begging To Be Sued! Landlords Protect
Yourself From Your Tenants & Lawsuits! (TM)© 2001
(Excerpts with Legal Cases)
By: Richard Rydstrom, Esq.
Jury Awards $14 Million!; $1.4 Million To Tenant! Can you remember reading or hearing similar sad stories against landlords? There are plenty more, with much more to come! Landlords are a fertile ground for increased lawsuits and personal liability. Did you know that one partner may be 100% liable for the acts of all partners under joint and several liability? Did you know that lawsuits and liability can come from any number of sources ranging from partners, investors, co-owners, tenancies in common, joint tenancies, joint ventures, managers, guests, tenants, tenant applicants, vendors, contractors, premises liability, slip & falls, dog bites, any systematic code enforcement program violations and government authorities? Moreover, with new laws, come new lawsuits. New laws will prove to devastate the unprotected landlord. Lawsuits concerning Mold, Lead, Asbestos, Disabilities, Discrimination, Harassment, and Wrongful Hiring/Firing will likely crumble some hard earned empires. Did you know that not all lawsuits are covered by insurance, and not all types of judgments are dischargeable in bankruptcy?
Are you protected from personal liability? Who did you hire to protect yourself from personal liability? While your CPA is primarily used for tax reasons, you may not be aware of the great risk of personal liability by keeping your rental units in your personal name, or in the name of your spouse, a dba or your living trust. (Generally a living trust does not protect your assets from the reach of creditors. Rest 2nd Trusts 220 (1959), 4 Scott Trusts 330.1-330.2, Ca. Prob. Code, Sections 18200, 15304 (a), 15304 (b), 15400, 19000-19403) until the death of the first spouse, then only to extent of the ByPass Trust and creditor actions (Ca Prob C 15300-15309). Your CPA will usually say, all you need is insurance! But the painful truth is insurance does not cover all types of lawsuits and potential liability. What happens if your insurance company denies your claim for legal defense and indemnity? Are your assets really safe from lawsuits, creditors, and tenants? Can you really afford to pay legal fees out of your own pocket? Your personal assets are vulnerable to loss in the event of a personal judgment against you (your spouse, co-owners, or partners). Remember your personal assets subject to loss include (with some restrictions) your rental building, your $1,000,000 IRA, your $850,000 home, your $45,000 bank account, your CD's, brokerage accounts, mutual funds and other toys. Should your goal be to merely save taxes, or to protect your empire and save taxes as well?
Warning Owners (Landlords), Partners (Silent Partners) & Employers New Laws Bring New Liability!
Agency law generally holds the principal liable for third parties for its employees' wrongful conduct. (ie: 2nd Restatement of Agency 213Ca, CC 2330-2339, Ca LC 2750.5). The hirer of an independent contractor who fails to take peculiar risk precautions may be liable for all persons injured. (2nd Restatement of Torts 413, 416, 427-427a (1965). An owner, general or prime contractor is "presumed" liable for the acts of a licensed contractor that it hired. (ie: Ca LC 2705.5, Sabella v Wisler (1963) 59 C2d 21). More and more, the law has refined itself to hold responsible the trades that have control, knowledge or supervision over the construction process.
Liability, Standards & New Laws in 2001: The Toxic Mold Act!
A review of all of the mold cases in the country will reveal that there is no universally accepted standard for mold exposure and its causal link to claimed injuries. Although, most cases are proving successful without such standards, California is first to not only set such standards but to add duties owed by landlords and owners of rental real property. If you're still not aware or convinced of the potential for devastating liability of mold as an owner/landlord, take notice that in California on Oct 5, 2001, Governor Davis made California the first state to set out new laws to regulate destructive fungus and mold. The law (SB 732, termed "The Toxic Mold Act") introduced by Sen. Deborah Ortiz (D-Sacramento) directs the California Department of Health Services (DHS) by July 1, 2003 to develop and adopt standards for mold exposure limits for mold in indoor environments. The law will also require landlords and owners of both commercial and residential property to disclose to prospective buyers and tenants, the presence of toxic mold that exceed the new law exposure limits. (Disclosure will not be required until at least 6 months after DHS adopts the new standards). The law does not require landlords to sample, inspect or test for levels of such toxins, however case law holds landlords liable even if they don't! Landlords may be liable for lead paint based injuries even if they do not have knowledge of the hazard! "Just as a motorist is presumed to know the laws regulating motor vehicles, the court reasoned, so a landlord is presumed to know the requirements of the local housing code pertaining to the habitability of leased premises. Landlords need not inspect the premises before leasing, the court said, but because of the implied representation of habitability that accompanies the making of the lease, they fail to do so at their peril." (Benik v Hatcher 750 A2d 10 (Md Ct App. 2000).
In addition, Gov. Davis signed AB 284 to direct the California Research Bureau to study and report by Jan., 1, 2003, the effects of toxic mold on health. While the DHS is working on SB 351 (the Brockovich chromimum 6 pollution standard due by Jan. 1, 2004), Gov. Davis signed SB 463 (Sen. Don Perata, D-Alameda) requiring a revised and updated standard of permissible levels of arsenic in our drinking water, by June 30, 2004. (National Academy of Sciences report 1999).
Lawsuits Are Moving Into The Million Dollar Range!
- A building owner was held vicariously liable with a demo-sub under the "particular risk doctrine" who failed to turn off the electric, causing death to the electric-sub worker. The jury awarded $2,884,557. (Thompson et al v Estate of Ken Davis, et al 10-20-00. Santa Ana Ca No 801067. Appeal pending).
o An apartment builder owner (husband and wife) went bankrupt to allegedly avoid execution of a judgment for sexual battery. A new fraudulent conveyance of $5,000,000 of real property (to wife) action was then sought against defendants (landlord-owners). Bradford v James Quan (3-27-00) Pomona No NEC 059723 (Actions v. insurance co., Appeal Aff.).
o Owner of apartment building failed to clean and repair loose tiles caused by a leak and accumulation in the kitchen from the above unit which landlord was aware. Plaintiff's wheelchair caught the edge of a loose tile causing him to fall off the chair causing soft tissue injuries. Binding arbitration awarded $893,550 on a $1,000,000 policy. (Cordier v AP Reyes, San Jose No DC 207196, Nov. 29, 99).
o The apartment management company and the employer-roofer were held jointly and severally liable for $3,279,000 to a roofer-employee who slipped and burned himself with hot tar. Since, it was held, that the roofer did not have valid workers compensation insurance (Labor Code 3715 et seq) and a valid contractor's license (Ca Labor Code 2750.5) both were liable at law, precluding plaintiff from contributory negligence (Labor Code 3708).
o Owner of a commercial restaurant hired a New Year's Eve party coordinator (general who hired several subs) to build a band platform for the party. He was jointly and severally liable for injury to sub's worker, as the duty was nondelegable. (Magana Jr v John Morris dba Mums Restaurant Long Beach, No NC 023815, Dec 12, 2000).
o Buyer of commercial car dealership property sued the seller for pertroleum (oil and gas) pollution contamination. The insurance company denied coverage under the owned property exclusion. After losing the lawsuit, a bad faith suit was brought against the insurance company for bad faith and presenting false documents (etc.). The jury awarded $30,750,090 ($30 million in punitives). (Earnest v Truck Ins. Exchange, Santa Ana Ca No 707368, Apr. 3, 2000).
o Employers! As an employer, be on notice that an insurer denied coverage to employer on an insurance policy which did contain coverage for discrimination on a racial discrimination-demotion lawsuit from an African-American employee. After much time and out of pocket expense the jury awarded some $13.5 million (later reduced to approx. $5.5 million). FUSD v Coregis Ins Co No 99AS00773 (10-5-00).
o The general contractor and the worker's employer were sued along with the concrete-sub and safety rebar cap supplier for injuries to a negligent iron-worker who fell some 40 feet impaling himself on vertical rebar with only 8' rated rebar safety caps. The jury awarded $1,285,000.
o Farmers wrongfully fired (fraud and breach of contract) manager in an effort to drive him to disability. It cost the employer $17.5 million! Reverse discrimination cost an employer $1.5 million (Copley v BAX Global In US Dist Ct SD Fla. No 98-3048-CIV, Feb.11,2000). Sexual harassment cost $2,000,000 under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000 et esq.; 42 U.S.C. 1983, and state statutes. (Griffin v City of Opa-locka US Dist Ct SD Fla No-98-1550 Apr 4, 2000).
- $4.65 Million! Retaliatory Discharge from employment resulted in a $4.65 Million jury award ($100,000 emotional distress, $4.3 million punitives). (Reust v Alaska Petroleum Contractors, Inc. 3KN-99-132 CI Kenai3d Jud Distr Super Ct Apr 24 2001).
o No LIMITS or CAPS apply when co-worker sexually harassed employee. (Intentional Discrimination allows for compensatory and punitive damages without limits). Federal Civil Rights Title VII Pollard v E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 121 S. Ct. 1946 (2001).
o ELEVATORS! Commercial Property!
o The building owner and the general contractor were liable for $10.3 million when a cable snapped and the elevator fell 180 feet causing personal injuries (NY Lab Law 5240, 5241 due to their subcontractors failure to provide plaintiff with proper protection for worked performed). (Alvarez v Morse Diesel Int'l NY NY Sup Ct No 116146/99, May 16, 2001).
o A jury awarded $5,750,000 to a legal secretary who was injured when the commercial elevator fell from the 31st to the 8th floor. The owner, maintenance service and management companies were held liable. (Palmer v Schindler Elevator, et al. LA Central No BC 154349, Sept, 29, 2000).
o LEAD PAINT!
o Landlords may be liable for lead paint based injuries even if they do not have knowledge of the hazard! "Just as a motorist is presumed to know the laws regulating motor vehicles, the court reasoned, so a landlord is presumed to know the requirements of the local housing code pertaining to the habitability of leased premises. Landlords need not inspect the premises before leasing, the court said, but because of the implied representation of habitability that accompanies the making of the lease, they fail to do so at their peril." (Benik v Hatcher 750 A2d 10 (Md Ct App. 2000).
o ASBESTOS! $15,000,000!
o An operating engineer at an office building for 21 years was diagnosed with mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos fire proofing material sprayed inside. Plaintiff and his wife sued the building owner and other operating engineers. They settled for $5 million. (Hoskins v Business Mens Asssurance Co of Am., Mo Jackson Cty Cir Ct No 00-CV-206172, Feb 23, 2001). Plaintiff also sued the manufacturer and won $10,000,000. (Hoskins v Federal Mogul Corp 20 PLLR 135 (Aug. 2001).
o MOLD!
o A $14,000,000 verdict was upheld in the appellate court against the construction manager for mold growth due to dampness and excessive humidity in the county courthouse (from faulty HVAC and mechanical systems, leaking windows, curtain walls EFIS and other defects from wet and damp building materials which fed the growth of mold, mildew and other organisms). The water damaged building becomes the covered property damage for coverage under the CGL insurance claim. (Centrex-Rooney Construction Co., Inc v Martin County, Florida 706 S2d 20 (Fla App 1998)).
o Judgment was entered for $14,200,00 in Marin County, Indian River Florida against a construction manager (CM) and three bond sureties for construction defects causing leaks to the exterior envelope and air conditioning. In California, a builder who sold a new home in Malibu, paid $1,350,000 to the buyers for exposure of mycotoxins released by Stachybotrys. Moreover, Judge Elisabeth Krant sued Tulare County and Kathleen Bales-Lange, Kitchell Capital Construction Management, JI Garcia Construction Inc., Bakersfield Glass Co., Superior Academy Granite Co., and numerous other subs, for exposure to mold, among other things. (Krant v County of Tulare et al No 00-0190367)
o Water leakage and mold caused personal property and structural damage to a family living in a New York apartment. Plaintiffs are seeking $180,000,000 against owner Glenwood Management Corp, operated by East 77th Realty LLC. (Dean HM Chenensky, et al v Glenwood Management Corp, et al., No 120461/00 NY Sup NY Co).
o New York employee for a community college and his wife seek $65,000,000 for injuries and damages caused by mold exposure. (Coiro, et al., v Dormitory Authority of the State of New York, No NY Sup Queens Co).
o Employees of a newspaper seeks $10,000,000 from the owner (landlord) of their building for injuries from exposure to toxic mold. (J.J. Acquisition Corp. v Pacific Gulf Properties __). Homeowners sued developers and contractors for construction defects from the growth of toxic mold. (Spectrum Community Association v Bristol house Partnership, June 2000 __).
o 1700 students, parents and teacher filed suit for $67,000,000 for injuries caused by exposure to toxic mold and flood pollutants at an elementary school for failure to remediate flood damage causing growth of mold. (Andrejevic et al v Board of Education of Wheaton-Warrenville School Dist No 200 Dupage County IL).
o Plaintiffs in Ontario Superior Court seek $2 Billion in a proposed class action lawsuit for students exposed to mold at various schools for the period September 1995 to June 1999, and their parents. (MacDonald v Dufferin-Peel Catholic Dist Sch Brd).
o 125 lawsuits is seeking $8 Billion in New York against apartment owners for personal injury damages incurred by exposure to fungi and mold contamination. (Samaris S. Davis., et al v Henry Phipps Plaza South, et al No 116331/98, N. Y. Sup. N.Y. Co., May 1999). The judge denied the class action certification on August 8, 2001 on liability issues only. A separate wrongful death(s) action is pending.
o $48,500,000 was agreed to in settlement for defective construction causing mold contamination against the general contractor for $13,500,000 and surety bonds for $35,000,000. (Polk County Florida)
o The general contractor, subcontractor and designer (architect) were sued for faulty construction, which fostered growth of mold in a home causing injuries. (Confidential Settlement). (O'Hara v Stangland et al).
o Erin Brockovich sued Robert Selleck, in California, to adverse health effects from the exposure to mold caused by water intrusion in a personal injury and construction defect lawsuit. Selleck is the builder and former owner. (Erin Brockovich v Robert Selleck).
o DEFECTIVE GALVANIZED PLUMBING!
o It cost some 40 builders, developers, owners and pipe manufacturers $41,000,000 for leaking rusty or corroded clogged galvanized Korean pipes (plumbing) in an approved class action settlement in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Over 3552 single family home and 1124 condos in 15 new-home communities in Santa Clarita Valley build from 1986-1994. (Newhall Land & Farming Co., American Beauty Homes, Dale Poe Dev., Presley Homes, Pacific Bay, Paragon Homes, Monteverde Devl., Dong Du Steel Ltd,. Et al. LASC)
o Warning! Gas Stoves, Ranges Or Furniture! Gas stoves and ranges have caused serious injury to tenants and children when the unit tips over causing crush or burn injuries. Landlords and installers of gas stoves/ranges will not be excused for failure to inspect and retrofit (properly secure and bracket) stoves and ranges. Although manufacturers and sellers have escaped strict liability since tort reform, all proper defendants may be liable for negligence. Rest. (3rd) of Torts: Product Liability; Tipping Stoves: A Risk You Need To Know About, CPM Aspects, Mar/Apr 1994 at 12 (Copies at Institute of Real Estate Management 430 N Michigan Ave Chicago IL 60611; Consumer Product Safety Comm¿n Product Profile for Ranges, Ovens And Stoves (10/76).
- Bad Faith Denial of Insurance Coverage & Punitive Damages:
- Insurance companies may defend you under a reservation of rights, and then seek reimbursement from you of all amounts paid to defend, settle and/or satisfy the claim. Or, at times, insurance companies deny claims and leave you out in the cold with respect to your legal defense and indemnity. Many of these denial cases result in bad faith wrongful denial of coverage (Egan v Mutual Of Omaha Ins 24 C3d 809, Gruenberg v Aetna Ins 9 C3d 566 (1973)) by the insurance company, but the denials keep coming anyway! Punitive damages are meant to punish or deter further wanton or reckless conduct. 22 Am Jur 2d Dam 243,245 (LCP 1965), CCC 3294(a). Punitives are allowed in most states in some form, including California, New York, Florida, Nevada, Arizona, Texas, etc. Worse yet, generally punitives are not dischargeable in bankruptcy! That¿s right, you pay and pay for years if necessary. In this circumstance, you will have to fend for yourself, and then sue your insurance company for breach of contract and bad faith. If you survive this ordeal, most don¿t, you may see redress. Some insurance companies have been hit with multimillion-dollar verdicts.
- Landlords! Punitive damages can be awarded even with no compensatory or nominal damages in race discrimination cases, under the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 USC 3601 et seq., and the Civil Rights Act of 1966, 42 USC 1981, 1982. Owner (landlords) lied to prospective tenants about the availability of apartment, while waiting for the "right tenant". (Alexander v Riga 208 F3d 419 (3d Cir 2000)).
o For example, a jury gave $41,897,797 to a silent partner of a general contractor's construction company sued for defective and unfinished work and fraud, who was denied coverage in bad faith in part for not being a named insured! Plaintiff was forced to file bankruptcy, he lost his home, his license, his business, and ultimately he suffered a heart attack! Stay tuned; this one is on a vigorous appeal with case consolidations and extensions of time. Hanstad v. Truck Insurance Exchange BC 156849 LA Central May 10, 2000, (5-10-00, Appeal Pending 10-11-2001).
o LEAD PAINT!
o Insurer denied coverage on lead based paint injuries causing brain damage to 3 children tenants. The insurer said it was liable only for years in which elevated lead levels were detected in the children (not before). The court found liability as the injury is not commensurate with external manifestation. Some bodily injuries occur before manifestation of symptoms. Warning! However, language could be placed in policies to limit the occurrence-based policy during policy period, here "year by year policy", which is like a "claims made" limitation). (Campell v Metro Prop & Cas Ins Co __FSUpp2d__, No 09-CIV. 5328 NRB, 2000 WL 297174 (SDNY Mar 21, 2000)).
o MOLD!
o In Texas, the jury found that Farmer's committed fraud in a bad faith handling and denial of coverage in a black mold case for water damage by allowing toxic mold to advance in the insureds 22 room mansion. It cost Farmers prox. $32 million! (Ballard v Fire Insurance Exchange, Judge John Dietz Travis Cty Texas)
o Anderson won $18,500,000 against All State Insurance for refusing to pay full amounts to remediate or fix the mold damage to his house caused by bursed pipes in February 1997. (Anderson v All State Insurance Co, Ca. No CIV-00-907 E.D. Calif; In remittitur total revised to $3,294,381.80).
o A Texas family sued Farmers Insurance Company for $100,000,000 for bad faith breach of contract for failure to settle flood damage causing toxic (Stachybotrys) mold growth in the plywood subfloor.
o Apartment builder owners were sued by a class (group of tenants) in Los Angeles, California for toxic injuries as a result of negligence, breach of the implied warranty of habitability, public nuisance, negligent and intentional misrepresentation, and unfair business practices. (Sharon R. Wheeler, et al v Avalonbay Communities, et al. No BC 237274, LASC).
o The construction bond was denied! Plaintiff, a small-mid sized construction management firm was awarded $1,962,000 by a jury against a sub's bonding company and a concrete-sub constructing public school parking garages and building foundations for failing to properly man the job and complete the concrete work timely. The sub's bonding company denied coverage and was a named defendant for bad faith, after plaintiff refused to sign a Takeover Agreement limiting coverage to stated bond penalty amount. Bonding company later nonsuited with responsibility to pay. (Lewis Jorge Construction Mgt v Tely Construction, Am. Moto.Ins.Co.(12-7-99) Santa Ana No 789768 Appeal Pending (Confidential Settlement Conference due 10-29-01)).
o Landlords insurance coverage was denied (in bad faith) in a wrongful death (negligent security) lawsuit brought by tenant¿s estate for the murder of the tenant by an unknown assailant. (Agoada Realty Corp., v United Int'l Ins Co 733 NE2d 213 (NY 2000).
- Employers! Warning re Workers Compensation & Bad Faith! An employer and insurance administrator wrongfully denied coverage (in bad faith) for workers leg treatment. It cost a confidential amount! (Skiba v Fresjh Mark Inc Ohio Columbiana Cty CCP No 98-VC-434, Jan. 14, 2000). Watch out as more and more insurance companies deny coverage when the applicant merely alleges (1) a serious or willful violation (ie: Ca LC 4553), and/or (2) wrongful discharge (ie: Ca LC 132a). Regardless of the truth, the law facially allows the insurance company to deny coverage (ie: Ca IC 11611) if the lawyer for the claimant alleges such wrongful conduct. The law is not certain in this area and more cases need to test such denials. States, like California, that have statutes that expressly allow for "additional compensation" may see more litigation. Meanwhile, you pay out of your pocket! Call for our free worker's compensation denial report!
o Builders "Leased Employees"! A 19-year-old "leased" woodworker employee from a builders payroll services company on his first day, cut off 3 fingers with a saw. The insurance company denied the workers compensation claim, and denied the cabinetmakers demand for legal defense. After years of expense and pain, the insurer was held liable for bad faith for $14,678,090. Diamond Woodworks v Argonaut Ins Co (Santa Ana Ca No 790462. Appeal pending).
Insurance Tips For Landlords!
An owner should require its general and sub contractor(s) to name the owner as an additional insured on the contractor's policies (for that project). In return the contractor should require the subcontractors to name the contractor as an additional insured on the subs' insurance policies. You should state in your agreement that ; the contractor and subcontractors represent and intend that insurance will be made available to owner (landlord) to cover any claims made against the job, project or property from anyone, for a period no lesser than the effective statute of limitations on said alleged claim. It is common to also request to be an additional insured of the contractors and subcontractors for several years after the completion of the job. (ie: 4 or 5 years). Insurance companies are obligated to defend (a developer) named as additional insured on policies issued after the job was completed, since they were "completed operations" policies. Pardee Constr. Co v. Ins. Co West (2000) 77 CA4th 1340. Obtain actual evidence of insurance policies, certificates and actual endorsements. Seek assurance that the broker/agent has authority to bind the insurance company. Also, have your Insurance Service Office Inc (ISO) endorsement reviewed by your attorney to determine which endorsement is necessary or appropriate (ie: Pre-1993-2010 Form (for completed operations' coverage or coverage that continued after completion of the project), the Revised ISO 2010 Form (with coverage for ongoing operations), or an automatic contractually defined coverage. The ISO 2009 may not be appropriate if ¿completed operations¿ are intended to be covered. Call you attorney for guidance.
Ensure that the subs are covered as well as the general contractor!
Insurance Policies for subcontractors, such as CGL should be reviewed to determine if the policy excludes coverage for liability assumed by contract or for employee injuries. Since most subcontracts have some form of indemnity clause, the sub may be exposed to liability with no insurance coverage for defense and/or indemnity. Gonzales v R.J. Novick Constr. Co. 20 C3d 798 (1978), 22 CEB Real Prop L Rep 234 (Nov. 1999), CC2782,2778,2778(1), CC-Ca Plaza Assoc. v Paller & Goldstein 51 CA4th 1042 (1996). Warning! This could result in less insurance to cover the owner landlord on certain claims!
Moreover, claims made after the effective policy period (Waller v Truck Ins. Exch. 11CA4th 1 (1995)) on a "claims made" policy are not covered. Make sure that the general and the sub are not using a claims made policy, as you may find that they will not have insurance coverage if a claim is presented after the claims made period (ie: the year after the job was completed). Moreover, the language contained in your sub¿s insurance policy, and the language of the indemnity clause in the generals' contracts are key factors to coverage protection. With state statutes holding preemptive transfers of sole negligence to fault-free subs against "public policy" (ie: Ca 2782), language of indemnity clauses become critical. Certain express language (or in equivalent terms) does satisfy an indemnity against liability (ie: Ca CC 2778(1) CC-Ca Plaza Asso v Paller (1996) 51 CA4th 1042). A smart-sub should add language to the general's contract, to the effect that he is [notwithstanding anything to the contrary], not intending to be subject to liability which is not covered by insurance! Watch Out! If your general does not have enough insurance or coverage is denied, the sub's insurance may deny coverage leaving the sub with no insurance (and possible you with no collection hopes)! Have the general and subs contracts with you (the owner) reviewed for coverage loopholes, especially the indemnity clauses! Call us for a free indemnity report!
For more information on asset and litigation protections with respect to integrated entities (i.e.: LLCs, Corporations, Nevada entities, etc.) see The 13 Secrets To The Rich Or Informed (TM) ©, ¿The Nevada Entity! TruthOrHype (TM) © 2001, LLCs, Entity Options & Comparisons (TM) © 2001.
Author, Richard Rydstrom, Attorney/Accountant/Author
International Who's Who of Professionals
Speaker for LandlordsClub.Com
(949) 798-6206
1-877-946-4968
RydstromLaw@yahoo.com
All Rights Reserved. Titles, Competition, Trademarks, Servicemarks, TM © 2001 Richard Rydstrom
Disclosure: LandlordsClub.Com (TM) is a trademark and related business interest of Richard Rydstrom.
v
