California E&S Insurance

Occasional contingency attorney here: No thanks. Let's start with the easiest reason why: You are hoping to sue a tenant who negligently and criminally discharged an illegal firearm in the middle of the night. They likely have no assets and you can't squeeze blood from a stone. The owner of the property is almost certainly not liable for the tenant's criminal conduct and would pay, at most, nuisance value. The HOA isn't responsible whatsoever and HOAs are notoriously litigious. Next, although you were wronged, you have bad damages. You have a duty to mitigate the harm meaning limit how much the wrong costs you. A structural engineer for a bullet hole? Loss of use from repairing a bullet hole? Living 45 miles away? None of that is reasonable. And, even if that was all reasonable, it's not much money. You posted elsewhere that you have $1,000 in damages. So I could go to war with an HOA to recover 1/3 of $1,000? That amount is not even worth the time I am taking to write this post. It's certainly not worth the time it would take to review your documentation, sign you up as a client, and get a file open for your case. You didn't mention it, but the emotional harm from the incident would likely be the only damage that would make this case worthwhile for a contingency attorney if it even meets the burden of proof required. But you were asleep. And because you haven't mentioned it I assume you haven't had any treatment. So that's off the table as a realistic ask. And even if you were actually emotionally harmed and you were going through treatment, I'd still have doubts about what that's actually worth. Property damage claims on a contingency generally don't exist unless the damage is huge. You generally don't get attorneys fees on top of cost to repair or replace the property. Lawsuits, or even threats of lawsuits, take a lot of time and a lot of money from the attorney. Unless there is a very large cost regarding the property damage there just isn't enough to justify the time/money and risk of loss to an attorney. And even if there is, dealing with a client who has verifiable property damage in the amount of $100,000 but who is only going to get $60,000 after $10,000 in costs and 1/3 going to the attorney is probably not a fun situation.

{
  "score": 0,
  "title": "",
  "subreddit": "Sacramento",
  "num_comments": 0,
  "scrape_method": "apify_targeted"
}