Thread: Heads up boys and girls!

I found a case called MILWICZ v. PUBLIC STORAGE, Cal: Court of Appeals, 2nd Appellate Dist., 7th Div. 2010, which is an unpublished case. This case is very interesting because it answers the question of whether we can point to our limit of liability clauses when we sell a tenants property and they sue us for conversion. In this case, Public Storage allegedly sold Milwicz property without sending out notices and/or following the California Business and Professions Code. It is interesting to note that the court found that the fact that Milwicz stored items having a value in excess of the contract does not excuse Public Storage's failure to comply with the terms of the Self Service Storage Facility Act. The court found that normally, an entity can exempt themselves from ordinary negligence, however, California Civil Code section 1668 generally invalidates contracts that attempt to exempt an entity from liability for future intentional wrongs.

In a case called City of Santa Barbara, supra, 41 Cal.4th 747, the Supreme Court drew a distinction between "ordinary negligence" and "gross negligence" with respect to exculpatory contracts. Basically, an entity cannot contract away liability if the conduct is found to be grossly negligent. The appellate court reversed the trial courts decision against Milwicz and sent the case back to the trial court to determine whether Public Storage is liable for negligence, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and conversion.

I thought that this unpublished case might be interesting since so many of you ask "How can they sue for so much money when our contract says their property is only worth $5,000?" Once again, this is a California case, however, it reinforces just how careful we must all be when auctioning a tenants space.

Very interesting. I know that the limit of liability language is useless in cases where we sell a tenants property. Is this case a recent case? It looks like a 2010 case.

How much money did they sue for?

Originally Posted by Lisa T

How much money did they sue for?

Milwicz is alleging damages of $250,000. Of course, we all know that this is a joke. Milwicz stored heirlooms, furniture, holiday decorations, etc. Mr. MIlwicz filed the suit and alleged that his wife, Mrs. Milwicz and Kimberly, his daughter were foreseeable victims of Public Storage's conduct, that Public Storage acted with gross negligence in selling or disposing of the Milwiczes' property. This was very similar to Cook v. Public Storage.

Public Storage lawyers responded by arguing that any harm to Mrs. Milwicz or Kimberly was not foreseeable based upon the contract, which was solely between Mr. Milwicz and Public Storage, and thererfore, the plaintiffs' claims were subject to waiver. The court refused to allow Mrs. Milwicz and his daughter standing.

The fact pattern was typical for self storage and could have happened to any of us.

hurlco:

The fact that the Court refused to allow Mrs. Milwicz and his daughter standing - should reinforce for everyone having just one name and signature on a rental agreement. Thanks for drawing everyone's attention to this case.

MisterJim444

I hope he has the pictures of the items that were stored as well as pictures of them being in the unit, with the Unit # and proof of the facility. I bet he never even stored that stuff there.

I would love to be able to go through the homes of the people that sue storage over stuff stolen or sold.

I bet 99 times out of 100, we would find everything in their list of "stored items" still sitting happily in their homes!

I think this case, though unpublished and therefore, not citable, demonstrates the folly by many state self storage associations of attempting to limit our liability in conversion claims to the stated, unrealistic, limitations of liability values in our contracts. While these may be upheld in theft claims, I foretell that they will not be upheld in tort litigation wherein the plaintiffs allege gross negligence, breach of contract, conversion, etc.