Los Angeles is a densely populated city with a high concentration of apartment buildings. These apartment buildings can be home to thousands of people, and unfortunately, accidents can happen. When accidents do happen in apartments, they can result in serious injuries or even death. In this blog, we will be discussing Los Angeles apartment accident claims, including the common causes of apartment accidents, the types of injuries that can occur, and what steps to take if you or a loved one has been injured in an apartment accident.

Common Causes of Apartment Accidents

There are many potential causes of apartment accidents, some of which include:

1. Slip and Fall Accidents: Slip and fall accidents are one of the most common types of apartment accidents. These accidents can happen when the floors are wet or slippery, or when there are obstacles in the walkway.
2. Faulty or Defective Wiring: Faulty or defective wiring can cause electrical shocks, fires, and other dangerous conditions in an apartment building.
3. Structural Issues: Structural issues in the building, such as cracks in the walls or ceilings, can lead to collapses or falling debris.
4. Elevator and Escalator Accidents: Elevator and escalator accidents can occur when there is a malfunction in the machinery or when there is improper maintenance.
5. Swimming Pool Accidents: Swimming pool accidents can occur when there is inadequate fencing or when the pool is not properly maintained.

Types of Injuries That Can Occur in Apartment Accidents

Injuries from apartment accidents can range from minor cuts and bruises to serious injuries or even death. Some of the most common types of injuries that can occur in apartment accidents include:

1. Broken Bones: Broken bones can happen in slip and fall accidents or in collapses and falling debris incidents.
2. Head Injuries: Head injuries can occur when someone falls or is struck by falling debris.
3. Burns: Burns can happen in electrical accidents or in fires caused by faulty wiring.
4. Electrocution: Electrocution can occur when there is faulty wiring in the apartment building.
5. Drowning: Drowning can happen in swimming pool accidents when there is inadequate fencing or when the pool is not properly maintained.

Steps to Take if You or a Loved One Has Been Injured in an Apartment Accident

If you or a loved one has been injured in an apartment accident, there are certain steps that you should take to protect your legal rights and to ensure that you receive the compensation that you deserve. These steps include:

1. Seek Medical Attention: The first thing you should do after an apartment accident is to seek medical attention. Even if you do not think that you have been seriously injured, it is important to get checked out by a medical professional.
2. Report the Accident: You should report the accident to the landlord or property management company as soon as possible. This will create a record of the accident and can be used as evidence in your case.
3. Document the Scene: Take pictures and videos of the scene of the accident, including any injuries that you or your loved one sustained. This evidence can be used to support your case.
4. Gather Witness Information: If there were witnesses to the accident, get their contact information. They may be able to provide testimony to support your case.
5. Consult with an Attorney: It is important to consult with an attorney who has experience handling apartment accident claims. An attorney can help you understand your legal rights and options and can assist you in getting the compensation that you deserve.

California Law on Legal Liability for An Accident and Injury at an Apartment Complex

Premises Liability Basics: Premises liability concerns the responsibility a landowner or occupier (like a renter) has for injuries sustained by individuals on their property. The traditional approach was to classify entrants into categories: trespassers, licensees, and invitees. Each category had different standards of care that the property owner owed.

Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108: In this case, the plaintiff, Robert Rowland, was a guest in the defendant’s apartment when he was injured by a broken faucet handle. The defendant, Otha Christian, knew the handle was broken but had not warned Rowland.

The key aspect of the California Supreme Court’s ruling was the decision to largely do away with the traditional categorization of entrants (trespasser, licensee, invitee) and, instead, apply a general duty of care that landowners owe to all entrants. The court determined that whether a duty exists depends on several factors:

1. Foreseeability of the harm to the plaintiff.
2. Degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury.
3. The closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered.
4. The moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct.
5. The policy of preventing future harm.
6. The extent of the burden to the defendant and consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach.
7. The availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved.

These factors helped to create a more flexible, case-by-case determination of liability rather than rigidly adhering to categories.

Implications for Legal Liability in California: After Rowland v. Christian, the main question in California premises liability cases became whether the defendant acted reasonably given the circumstances, rather than what category the plaintiff fell into. While the categorization hasn’t been completely discarded and might still be relevant in some situations, the focus shifted more toward a broader standard of reasonableness and the factors established by the Rowland court.

In essence, if you are a property owner or occupier in California and someone gets injured on your property, the question will be whether you acted reasonably in maintaining your property or in warning of known hazards. If the harm was foreseeable and you did not take reasonable steps to prevent it, you could be found liable for the injuries.

Consult with A Los Angeles Apartment Accident Attorney

Over the past 25 plus years, we have helped many victims of accidents that happen in and around apartment complexes in Los Angeles. Whether you are a tenant or a guest, we can help you determine if the landlord’s negligence was a factor in your injury and whether you may have a legal right to recovery for your injuries. Call our offices at 866-966-5240 for a free claim evaluation.

Many Americans count pets as valued members of their families, and dogs are among the most popular types of pets with 38.4% of U.S. households owning at least one dog. California reflects a similar trend with nearly 40% of households owning one or more dogs. In Los Angeles County, the percentage of dog owners reflects the state and national trends with 40.1% of households in the county owning dogs.

While dogs are popular types of pets, they also can cause serious injuries or deaths when they attack others. Unfortunately, any dog can bite. When someone is seriously injured or killed in a dog attack, the victim or family can pursue compensation by filing a dog bite claim against the dog’s owner. Dog bite claims are typically covered by the pet owner’s homeowner’s or renter’s insurance policy. Recent dog bite claims data demonstrates the severity of dog bite attacks and how costly they can be when someone is seriously injured by a dog.

Insurance Claims Data for Dog Bites

Insurance claims data for 2022 reported by the Insurance Journal reveals that insurance companies paid more than $1 billion during that year in dog bite claims across the U.S. This represented a 28% year-over-year increase from 2021 even though the total number of claims in 2022 fell to 17,597 as compared to 17,989 filed in 2021. Even though the total number of claims dropped by 2.2%, the total claims paid by insurance companies increased from $882 million to $1.13 billion in 2022.

The average per-claim value of dog bite claims paid in 2022 was $64,555 as compared to an average value of $49,025 in 2021 for a 31.7% increase. Between 2013 and 2022, the average value of dog bit claims paid by insurance companies increased by 131.7%. This increase is largely due to the upward trend in the cost of medical care and the size of jury verdicts, judgments, and settlements.

State Data

In 2022, California had the most dog bite claims filed in the country. The top five states for dog bite injury claims included the following:

• 1. California with 1,954 claims filed
• 2. Florida with 1,331 dog bite claims filed
• 3. Texas with 1,017 dog bite claims field
• 4. New York with 969 dog bite claims filed
• 5. Michigan with 905 dog bite claims filed

California was also the number one state in terms of dog bite injury claims paid by insurance companies with those paid in the state averaging $78.818 in 2022. Florida came in at a close second with an average paid claim value of $78,203.

Liability for Dog Bite Claims

Dog bite laws vary across the U.S. Some states have laws that are known as one-bite dog statutes while others impose strict liability on dog owners when their dogs bite others. California is one of 29 states that holds dog owners strictly liable when their dogs bite others.

In states with one-bite dog laws, owners are only liable when they have knowledge or should reasonably know that their dogs have a propensity to bite others. In those states, this means that a dog owner will typically not be liable the first time their dog bites someone else. In states with strict liability statutes for dog bites like California, however, a dog owner’s previous knowledge of their dog’s propensity to bite is not dispositive. Instead, a dog owner is liable regardless of whether the owner knew or had reason to know of the viciousness of their dog.

Four states, including Mississippi, Kansas, North Dakota, and Arkansas, do not have dog bite laws. In those states, cases involving dog bites must be filed under the common law instead of a statute.

California’s Strict Liability Dog Bite Law

California’s strict liability dog bite statute is found at Cal. Civ. Code § 3342. This law imposes strict liability on dog owners when their dogs bite others in public places and those who are lawfully present on private property. According to the statute, it does not matter whether the owner knew or reasonably should have known that their dogs were likely to bite other people.

Lawful Presence

Someone is lawfully present when they are on private property at the express or implied invitation of the dog’s owner. Lawful presence also includes being on private property to perform a lawful duty recognized under state or federal laws. The following are examples of people who could be deemed as being lawfully present on private property:

• Social guests
• Postal carriers
• Package deliverers
• Food delivery drivers
• Meter readers
• People performing work on a home renovation project

The strict liability statute does not protect people who are illegally present on private property. For example, if someone hops over a fence and attempts to break into the owner’s home, the dog’s owner would not be liable if their dog bites the trespasser. To be safe, however, it’s a good idea for dog owners to post visible warning signs alerting others that their dog is present. It’s also a good idea for dog owners to put their dogs away when they have guests over and to keep them separated from guests and children while they are visiting.

Exceptions to Strict Liability

The strict liability dog bite statute lists the following exceptions involving police or military dogs when strict liability won’t apply:

• During the apprehension of someone by the police or military officer who is reasonably suspected of criminal activity
• While the police or military officer is investigating a crime
• When the police or military officer is executing an arrest or search warrant
• While defending the officer or a third party

In these situations, the military or police dog’s owner will not be strictly liable when their dog bites.

When Strict Liability Doesn’t Apply in Dog Bite Cases

It’s important to note that the strict liability statute in California doesn’t apply to people in control of the dog who are not the dog’s owners or when someone is injured by a dog in an attack that doesn’t involve bites. It also doesn’t apply when a different type of animal is involved. For example, if a dog bites someone while being walked by a professional dog walker, the dog walker would not be strictly liable under the dog bite statute in California. If a cat attacks someone who is visiting its owner and causes serious injuries by biting and scratching the visitor, the strict liability statute would not apply. Similarly, if a dog jumps on someone while running loose and knocks them down, causing serious injuries, the strict liability statute would not impose strict liability on the dog’s owner.

In these types of situations, the victims can still pursue dog bite claims under the state’s common law negligence rules. Negligence per se claims might also be available in certain situations when an ordinance has been violated by the person who owns or controls the dog.

Negligence Claims for Dog or Other Animal Attacks

When the strict liability statute doesn’t apply, an injured victim might still be able to pursue a claim under the state’s negligence laws. To prevail with a negligence claim, the plaintiff will need to prove each of the following elements:

• The defendant owed a legal duty to the plaintiff.
• The defendant violated the legal duty.
• The defendant’s breach of the legal duty caused the animal attack and the plaintiff’s injuries.
• The plaintiff suffered actual damages.

For example, if an owner failed to secure their pet python snake in its terrarium away from visitors and instead allowed it to freely roam about the house, a visiting family could pursue a negligence wrongful death claim against the owner if the python suffocated a small child during their social visit.

Negligence Per Se Claims

Some situations might involve violations of local ordinances. For example, if a dog walker allows a dog to roam off-leash in a restricted area, the dog walker could be liable under a negligence per se theory under a local leash law. Negligence per se claims allow the owner or person in control of the dog to be held liable without having to prove negligence based on the violation of the statute or ordinance.

Who Pays Dog Bite Claims?

Some people hesitate to file dog bite claims against friends or family members when they are injured by their loved one’s dogs. However, it’s important to understand that dog bite claims are generally paid by the dog owner’s homeowner’s or renter’s insurance instead of by the owners directly. Most insurance policies will pay dog bite claims up to the policy limits, which can range from $100,000 to $300,000. However, some insurance companies include breed restrictions in their policies. A personal injury attorney can review the insurance policy to determine whether a specific breed has been restricted and can investigate to determine other potential recovery sources when an exclusion applies.

Get Help from a Los Angeles Dog Bite Lawyer

If you were bitten by a dog or were otherwise injured in an animal attack, you should reach out to an experienced attorney at the law firm of Steven M. Sweat, Personal Injury Lawyers, APC. Call us for a free case evaluation today at 866.966.5240.

In some situations, California property owners may be liable for injuries that happen to people located off of their property. However, that is not always the case. In Issakhani v. Shadow Glen Homeowners Association, Inc., Cal. Ct. App. Case No. B301746, the California Court of Appeal considered whether a condominium complex owed a duty of care to a plaintiff who jaywalked across a busy street to reach the complex to visit her friend because the complex did not have enough marked visitor spaces.[1]

Factual and procedural background

Anaeis Issakhani went to visit a friend who lived at the Shadow Glen condominium complex in Los Angeles on the night of June 10, 2014, after dark. When she arrived, she did not see any available visitor parking space in the complex’s lot, so she parked her vehicle across a five-lane street in front of the complex. When she crossed the street, she failed to walk a few hundred feet to a marked crosswalk and instead jaywalked. A car struck her, causing her to suffer multiple fractures and a traumatic brain injury. Issakhani filed a lawsuit against the Shadow Glen condominium complex with negligence and premises liability causes of action. She alleged that the company was negligent by failing to install enough visitor spaces in the complex’s parking lot in violation of a municipal ordinance.

The complex was built in 1979 and had 68 residential units. At the time, the property was zoned as a single-family residence area. The developer applied for a variance to allow a mix of single- and multi-family units. The city granted the variance but required the developer to install an additional one-half parking space per unit so that there would be plenty of spaces for visitors to park. This meant that the complex needed to have 68 tenant parking spaces and 34 guest parking spaces. The complex built 170 spaces, which was 13 more than required.

When Issakhani’s accident happened, the complex still had 170 parking spaces. However, just six of the spaces were marked for visitors. Issakhani argued that the lack of spaces reserved for visitors created a foreseeable risk that visitors would park across the five-lane street and try to cross to visit their friends and potentially be hit by cars.

Shadow Glen filed a motion for summary judgment. After a hearing, the trial court ruled that Shadow Glen did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff and dismissed the action. Issakhani filed an appeal.

Issue: Whether Issakhani’s decision to jaywalk meant that the complex did not owe her a duty of care?

The issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred in granting Shadow Glen’s motion for summary judgment when it found that the homeowners’ association did not owe Issakhani a duty of care. Issakhani argued that she was forced to park across the busy road to visit her friend who lived in the complex because the complex only had six marked visitor spaces instead of the 34 that were required by the ordinance at the time the developer was granted a variance in the late 1970s. She argued that it was reasonably foreseeable that someone could be forced to park across the busy, five-lane road and get hit by a car when crossing it to reach the complex. Shadow Glen argued it did not owe Issakhani a duty of care. The homeowners’ association pointed out that there was a marked crosswalk a few hundred feet away from where Issakhani jaywalked. Since there was a marked crosswalk nearby, the defendant argued that Issakhani’s accident was not reasonably foreseeable and the complex did not owe her a duty of care.

Rule: A person or business owes a duty of care when a legal obligation exists to prevent others from being injured. However, whether a duty of care exists is based on public policy.

Causes of action based on negligence require plaintiffs to prove that the defendant owed a duty of care and breached it. They must also show that the breach of the duty of care was the direct or proximate cause of the plaintiff’s accident and injuries and that the plaintiff suffered actual harm as a result. A landowner may owe a duty of care to protect people who are located offsite when the manner in which they maintain their property creates an unreasonable risk of injury to people who are not located on the property.

Analysis

Property owners owe a duty of care to maintain their property in a reasonably safe condition to prevent lawful visitors from being injured by hazards that are present on the property.[2] However, this duty is not absolute. When a risk is open and obvious, a visitor who fails to avoid the danger might be prevented from recovering damages.

The court began by looking at the duty of care under the common law to determine whether the duty of care of landowners includes a duty to maintain their property in such a way that people who are not located onsite will be protected from an unreasonable risk of injury. While the court noted that the landowner’s duty could include a duty to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm to people located offsite by how they maintain their property, it stated that the analysis of whether an individual landowner’s duty should include that additional duty depends on an analysis of the factors outlined in Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108 (1968).[3] However, the court determined the landowner’s duty does not include a duty to maintain onsite parking to prevent people from having to cross the road to reach their property based on precedent and the Rowland factors themselves.

In Vasilenko v. Grace Family Church, 3 Cal.5th 1077 (2017), the California Supreme Court held that landowners that simply maintain an offsite parking lot for guests do not have a duty to protect them when they cross the street to reach the landowner’s property.[4] Under Vasilenko, landowners do not have a duty to provide onsite parking to guests to prevent them from being injured offsite. As we have previously noted, while a landowner’s duty can extend to include adjacent property that is publicly owned, it will only exist when the landowner has done something to exercise control over the publicly owned property that contributes to the dangerous condition.[5]

In considering the Rowland factors, the court considered whether the injury was foreseeable and other factors of public policy. While the court found that it was foreseeable that someone who parked offsite might be injured while crossing the street, it found that the risk was too attenuated from the landowner’s actions to support a finding that Shadow Glen owed a duty of care. The court also found that it was not in the interests of public policy to require landowners to provide enough parking spaces for people who might visit their properties since such a rule would require some property owners to have to bulldoze buildings and do other things that would be prohibitively expensive. In the alternative, forcing Shadow Glen to reserve more spaces for visitors would simply shift who was required to park offsite from guests to tenants. The court found that this type of duty would be unduly burdensome for landowners.

The court then considered whether the municipal ordinance created at the time Shadow Glen was built created a duty of care for Shadow Glen to provide sufficient parking to visitors. However, the court determined that the ordinance was specific to the parcel and was created to maintain the aesthetic appeal of the surrounding neighborhood instead of to protect visitors from potential harm. Because of this, the court found that the ordinance did not create a duty of care.

Conclusion

The court found that Shadow Glen did not owe Issakhani a duty of care. It affirmed the trial court’s decision and awarded Shadow Glen its costs on appeal.

Talk to an experienced Los Angeles personal injury lawyer

If you have suffered serious injuries while lawfully visiting the property of someone else because of the negligent manner in which the property was maintained, you should talk to an experienced personal injury attorney at the Steven M. Sweat Personal Injury Lawyers. We can review what happened and help you to understand whether your claim might have legal merits. Call us at 866.966.5240 to learn more about your rights.

Sources

[1] https://cases.justia.com/california/court-of-appeal/2021-b301746.pdf?ts=1619803908

[2] https://www.victimslawyer.com/premises-liability.html

[3] https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/rowland-v-christian-30100″>Rowland v. Christian

[4] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5882696754408423493&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

[5] https://www.victimslawyer.com/blog/los-angeles-parking-lot-accident-not-the-fault-of-the-adjacent-business/

In urban areas of California like Los Angeles, slumlords take advantage of tenants by failing to keep their properties in a reasonably safe condition. When landlords fail to make repairs or to maintain their properties, tenants who are left to live in uninhabitable conditions may have grounds to file lawsuits. In Williams v. 3620 W. 102nd Street, Inc., Cal. Ct. App. Case No. B297824, the appeals court considered whether an arbitration clause contained in a residential lease should compel the parties to arbitration rather than allowing the tenants to pursue their rights through litigation.[1]

Factual and procedural background

Keisa Williams signed a lease in March 2014 to rent an apartment located at 3620 W. 102nd Street in Los Angeles with Rubin Womack. The two lived in the apartment with Williams’ two children and another person. In 2015, the lease was renewed. The tenants filed a lawsuit against the owners in Oct. 2016 claiming that they had violated the warranty of habitability and had engaged in negligence because of a lack of pest control in their apartment and in the building’s common areas. The tenants alleged that their apartment was infested with bed bugs and had several other problems that the owners had failed to correct. Because of the bed bugs, the tenants alleged that they had suffered personal injuries and property damages.

In March 2019, the owners filed a motion to compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause in the tenants’ residential lease. The clause stated that issues that might arise between the tenants and the owners would be settled in arbitration rather than being litigated in court. The tenants opposed the motion, arguing that they could not have validly signed an arbitration agreement within a residential lease under California law. The lease referred to the arbitration agreement in Addendum B, which had spaces for the landlords and the tenants to sign. However, the spaces were blank. The court denied the owners’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that the owners had not shown that they had a valid arbitration agreement and that the owners had waived arbitration. The owners filed an appeal.

Issue: Whether the arbitration clause in the tenants’ lease compelled arbitration or was void?

The issue on appeal was whether the arbitration clause that was referenced in the tenants’ residential lease should have compelled the parties to arbitrate their dispute rather than to litigate it. The tenants argued that the arbitration clause was not enforceable under state law. The owners argued that the clause was valid and should have compelled the tenants to arbitrate the dispute rather than pursuing litigation in court.

Rule: Under California law, arbitration agreements contained inside of residential leases are not enforceable.

Under Cal. Civ. Code § 1953(a)(4), any agreement in a residential lease in California through which a tenant waives his or her procedural rights in litigation about the tenants’ rights are considered to be void.[2] The owners argued that this section did not apply because the tenants were not waiving their right to a jury trial when they signed the arbitration agreement compelling arbitration of any disputes that might arise between the tenants and owners.

Analysis

Under California law, landlords are expected to maintain and repair their properties to keep them in a reasonably safe and hazard-free condition for their tenants. Slumlords who do not adequately maintain their properties may violate county ordinances and state laws.[3] Tenants have a right to file lawsuits against their landlords when their properties are in disrepair and are unsafe. However, this case looked at whether the dispute should be litigated in court or could be sent to arbitration.

The court began by noting that the case fell under state rather than federal law. The owners did not try to claim that the Federal Arbitration Act applied to the case in the trial court, and the appeals court also found that the lease did not involve interstate commerce. This meant that state law applied. It then looked at two court decisions that had interpreted Civ. Code § 1953(a)(4).

The court first considered Jaramillo v. JH Real Estate Partners, Inc., 194 Cal.App.4th 394 (2003).[4] In this case, the appeals court affirmed the trial court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration. The plaintiffs had filed a claim against their landlords based on mold in their apartment. In that case, the court found that the tenants’ procedural rights to litigation in cases involving tenant rights applied because compelling arbitration necessarily prevents the tenants from taking their cases to trial before a jury. The court did find that tenants could waive their rights in agreements that were separate from their residential leases but could not do so within a residential lease.

The court then reviewed the decision in Harris v. University Village Thousand Oaks CCRC, LLC, 49 Cal.App.5th 847 (2020).[5} In that case, several residents of a continuing care facility sued because of alleged misrepresentations about fees and security. The continuing care retirement community filed a motion to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement in the contract. The trial court ordered the parties into arbitration. However, the appeals court found that the arbitration agreement was void because the residents were arguing about their rights as tenants. The court also noted that the state’s legislature enacted Civ. Code § 1953 to prevent tenants from waiving important rights unknowingly.

In comparing the instant case to Jaramillo, the appeals court stated that both were dealing with conditions inside of their apartments and in common areas. The claims dealt with violations of their rights as tenants, and the arbitration agreement would have waived their right to a jury trial. The owners tried to argue that Civ. Code § 1953(a)(4) did not apply to the right to a jury trial. However, the courts in Harris and Jaramillo both found that waiving procedural rights would necessarily include waiving the right to a jury trial since arbitration forecloses the ability to pursue litigation in the courts. The owners argued that Jaramillo allows arbitration of claims involving habitability. However, the appeals court noted that arbitration of disputes over the warranty of habitability is only enforceable when the agreement is in a standalone document, and the agreement in the instant case was contained within the residential lease.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court’s decision but on different grounds. It found that the arbitration agreement contained inside of the tenants’ lease violated public policy. The case was returned to the trial court for further proceedings, and Williams and the other tenants were awarded their costs on appeal.

Contact the Steven M. Sweat Personal Injury Lawyers

Slumlords should not be allowed to get away with leaving their apartments and other properties in a state of disrepair. When tenants are living in dangerous conditions that their landlords refuse to correct, they may have legal rights to file lawsuits against their landlords. If your landlord has failed to correct dangerous conditions in your apartment or in the common areas of your building, you may want to consult with the personal injury attorneys at the Steven M. Sweat Personal Injury Lawyers firm in Los Angeles. Contact us today to learn about your legal options and the remedies that might be available to you by calling us at (866) 966-5240 or by submitting your case details to us on our online contact form.

Sources

[1] https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2020/b297824.html

[2] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&division=3.&title=5.&part=4.&chapter=2.&article=

[3] https://www.victimslawyer.com/slumlord-tenant-injury-claims-in-california.html

[4] https://casetext.com/case/jaramillo-v-jh-real-estate-partners-inc

[5] https://www.leagle.com/decision/incaco20200601001