Jury Rules for Homeowners in $213K Falling Tree Damage Case
Table of Contents
Case Background
Fire Insurance Exchange, a California interinsurance exchange operating under Farmers Insurance, filed a subrogation lawsuit against Gary and Helen Botsford in the Superior Court of California, Butte County. The case, numbered 23CV01327, was filed on May 18, 2023, and proceeded to a jury trial in August 2025 before Judge Stephen E. Benson in Department 6.
Cause
The lawsuit arose from an incident that occurred on October 24, 2021, at 5370 Harrison Road in Paradise, California. Fire Insurance Exchange alleged that the Botsfords, as property owners, negligently maintained, controlled, and supervised trees on their property. According to the complaint, a tree from the Botsford property fell onto the neighboring property owned by Jenna Doorville, who was insured by Fire Insurance Exchange. The falling tree caused significant damage to Doorville's real and personal property.
Injury
The incident resulted in substantial property damage to Doorville's residence and belongings at 5370 Harrison Road. Fire Insurance Exchange, as Doorville's insurer, paid out $213,446.26 to cover the property damage claim. Through the principle of subrogation, the insurance company stepped into the shoes of its insured policyholder to seek recovery from the allegedly responsible parties.
Damages Sought
Fire Insurance Exchange sought to recover $213,446.26 in damages, representing the full amount paid to its insured. The Plaintiff also requested prejudgment interest from February 17, 2022, along with costs of suit.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Fire Insurance Exchange, a California Interinsurance Exchange
· Counsel for Plaintiff: Kevin H. Park | John C. Lauritsen
Defendant(s): Gary Botsford | Helen Botsford, Trustees of the Botsford Family Trust
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Benjamin W. Blaisdell
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
The trial began on August 25, 2025, and proceeded with witness testimony and evidence presentation before a twelve-person jury. Both sides presented their cases regarding the tree fall incident and the alleged negligence of the property owners.
Claims
Fire Insurance Exchange pursued a single cause of action for negligence through subrogation. The Plaintiff argued that Gary and Helen Botsford, as property owners, owed a duty of care to neighboring properties regarding the maintenance of trees on their land. The insurance company contended that the Botsfords breached this duty by negligently maintaining, controlling, and supervising their trees, which directly caused the tree to fall and damage Doorville's property. The Plaintiff asserted that this negligence was a substantial factor in causing the harm for which Fire Insurance Exchange paid $213,446.26 in insurance benefits.
Defense
The Botsfords filed a comprehensive answer denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. Their defense strategy included challenging the Plaintiff's standing, arguing that the Plaintiff's claims were barred by applicable statutes of limitations, and asserting that any damages resulted from the carelessness or negligence of the Plaintiff's insured. The defense also raised the doctrine of comparative fault, suggesting that other parties or factors contributed to the incident. Additionally, the Botsfords argued that acts of nature or force majeure may have played a role, and that the alleged damages were caused by circumstances outside their control. The defense further contended that proper notice and opportunity to cure any alleged issues were never provided.
Jury Verdict
Following the presentation of evidence and closing arguments, the jury deliberated and returned its verdict on August 26, 2025. The twelve-member jury found in favor of the Defendants, Gary and Helen Botsford.
The jury answered two key questions on the verdict form. On the first question, the jury determined that Gary Botsford, Trustee of the Botsford Family Trust, and Helen Botsford, Trustee of the Botsford Family Trust, were negligent. However, on the critical second question, the jury found that this negligence was not a substantial factor in causing harm to Fire Insurance Exchange. This finding broke the chain of causation necessary for the Plaintiff to recover damages.
Based on the jury's verdict, Judge Stephen E. Benson entered judgment on October 22, 2025. The Court ordered that judgment be entered in favor of Defendants Gary and Helen Botsford and against Plaintiff Fire Insurance Exchange. The judgment declared that Fire Insurance Exchange shall take nothing by way of this action. As the prevailing parties, the Botsfords were awarded their costs of suit, to be determined through a memorandum of costs filing.
The verdict represented a complete defense victory in this subrogation case. While the jury acknowledged some level of negligence on the part of the property owners, they concluded that this negligence did not substantially contribute to the damage that occurred. This distinction proved decisive, as California law requires a Plaintiff to establish not only that a Defendant acted negligently but also that such negligence was a substantial factor in causing the Plaintiff's harm. The Botsfords' successful defense meant Fire Insurance Exchange was unable to recover the $213,446.26 it sought, plus interest and costs.
Court Documents