Savannah Jury Awards $72,000 in Property Defect Case
One driver entered into a contract for the purchase of a house and real property. The sellers prepared a property disclosure statement falsely claiming there had never been any water intrusion into the garage. In reality, water regularly leaked into the garage during rainfall, causing damage inside. The buyer alleged the sellers were aware of this problem when they made the false disclosure. The buyer filed a complaint seeking damages for the cost to fix the defect and repair damages. The sellers raised several defenses. The court granted the buyer's motion for summary judgment as to the sellers' affirmative defenses. The jury found in favor of the buyer on all claims except punitive damages and attorney fees, awarding the buyer $72,000 in compensatory damages.
Case Information Updated: October 2025
Case Outcome
- Outcome
- Verdict-Plaintiff
- Amount
- $72,000
- County
- Dallas County, GA
- Resolved
- 2019
Injury & Accident Details
- Injury Type
- Other
- Accident Type
- Other
- Case Type
- Motor Vehicle Negligence
Settlement Context
This verdict-plaintiff of $72,000 is near the median of $22,000 for other cases resolved by verdict-plaintiff. The typical range is $8,200 to $102,285, based on 304 cases in our database.
Case Overview
In July 2016, a property in Savannah, Georgia, was sold, with the sellers providing a disclosure statement that allegedly misrepresented the condition of the garage. The plaintiff, who purchased the property, claimed the sellers falsely stated there had never been water intrusion into the garage, despite ongoing leakage and resulting damage during rainfall that had existed prior to the sale. The plaintiff alleged the sellers were aware of this issue when the disclosure was made.
The plaintiff filed a complaint seeking judgment for the cost to repair the water intrusion defect and damages, along with punitive damages, attorney fees, and litigation expenses. Alternatively, the plaintiff sought rescission of the sales contract. The defendants raised several defenses, including failure to state a claim and insufficient service of process.
In November 2016, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment regarding the defendants' affirmative defenses of failure to state a claim and insufficient service of process. The court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated a basis for judgment as a matter of law, and the defendants failed to present facts creating a genuine issue for trial on those defenses. The case then proceeded to trial.
In October 2018, a jury found in favor of the plaintiff on most claims, awarding $72,000 in compensatory damages for the water intrusion issues. The jury did not award punitive damages or attorney fees. The case was officially terminated in January 2019.
Understanding This Case
- This case went to trial and resulted in a jury verdict. Verdicts can yield higher awards but carry the risk of receiving nothing if the jury rules against the plaintiff.
- This case was resolved in Dallas County, Georgia. Local jury tendencies, judge assignments, and regional economic conditions all influence case outcomes in this jurisdiction.
- Resolved in 2019, this case reflects the legal and economic conditions of that period, including medical costs, insurance practices, and jury award trends at the time.
VerdictlyTM Score
This outcome differs from typical similar cases
This score is calculated by analyzing injury type, accident details, geographic location, temporal trends, and comparing against 2,000+ similar cases in our database.
Want to check your case value?
Get a free case evaluation to understand what your motor vehicle accident case might be worth based on cases like this in Dallas County.
Similar cases you may find useful
Handpicked by matching injury type, accident details, and outcome to this case.
A plaintiff with a classic automobile insurance policy filed a claim after three vehicles went missing or were stolen from a storage location in Denver, Colorado. The policy required storage in a specific secure building, but the plaintiff had moved the vehicles during renovations. Two vehicles were later recovered severely damaged, while a third remained unlocated. The insurer made a partial payment for one vehicle but denied full coverage, attributing some damage to wear and tear and denying the unrecovered vehicle's claim. The plaintiff sued the insurer in federal court, alleging breach of contract, unreasonable delay and denial of payment under Colorado statutes, and common-law bad faith. The insurer counterclaimed, seeking a declaratory judgment, alleging breach of the policy's misrepresentation and concealment provisions, and requesting recoupment of payments. These counterclaims were permitted to proceed following a magistrate judge's recommendation, which a district judge adopted. The plaintiff later amended the complaint to add the insurance producer as a defendant, alleging negligence if insurer coverage was denied. In July 2023, the plaintiff and the insurer filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice for all claims between them, indicating a settlement had been reached. The specific terms of this settlement were not publicly disclosed. Each party agreed to bear its own costs and attorney fees.
The employer, Star*Tel Systems, appealed a decision by an administrative law judge in Kentucky. The judge had previously determined that an employee sustained a permanent and total disability following a work-related motor vehicle accident. The appeal challenged the judge's opinion, order, and award.
A motor vehicle collision occurred in Mesa County, Colorado, involving a vehicle operated by the defendant and another car carrying the plaintiff as a passenger. The plaintiff alleged the incident caused permanent personal injuries, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and resulted in medical expenses and economic losses. The plaintiff filed a vehicular liability action in the Colorado District Court, Twenty-First Judicial District, County of Mesa, claiming the defendant's negligence. Allegations included failing to operate the vehicle prudently, maintain a proper lookout, obey traffic control devices, driving at an excessive speed, and failing to stop at a red light. The plaintiff sought damages for the alleged harm. In response, the defendant denied the allegations of negligence. The defendant also asserted affirmative defenses, including claims of failure to state a claim, culpable conduct, and failure to mitigate damages. The parties subsequently filed a notice with the court indicating that they had reached a settlement in the action.
A lawsuit stemmed from a motor vehicle and pedestrian collision. The plaintiff presented expert testimony related to life care planning and rehabilitation, indicating claims for long-term care and disability. The defendant countered with expert testimony from fields including psychology, neuropsychology, and orthopedic surgery. The parties reached a resolution, and the case was concluded with a stipulated dismissal in April 2019.
A personal injury case arose from an auto accident. The plaintiff retained an expert in economics to assess damages. The defendant presented experts in emergency medicine, biomechanics, and accident reconstruction, suggesting disputes over the nature or cause of injuries. An occupational therapy expert also participated in the case. The matter proceeded to a trial, which concluded on December 9, 2016. Details regarding the verdict or any award were not specified in the record.
Explore More Cases Like This
Browse similar cases by injury type and location to get a better understanding of case values in your area.