Judge Sees How Role of Plaintiff Suits Him : Courts: Veteran jurist takes stand in his case against insurance firm. He watches his daughter cry, hears his word scorned and comes to doubt the cross-examination process.

For the past three weeks, veteran federal district Judge Laughlin E. Waters of Los Angeles has been looking at justice from the other side of the bench.

Instead of presiding over a courtroom, Waters, 79, has been in the plaintiff’s chair during an aggressively litigated trial that pits him and his wife against their insurance company.

Waters, a tall man with a full head of white hair, has given testimony about the fire at his Hancock Park home that touched off the legal dispute. He has also: briefly told a jury about his role in the Normandy invasion during World War II, undergone rigorous cross-examination on how an adjuster handled the insurance claim, watched one of his daughters cry on the witness stand, and listened to one of the state’s top insurance defense lawyers tell a courtroom that his claim had absolutely no merit, even if he is a federal judge.

Although judges file suits from time to time, Waters is the only federal judge in recent memory to actually go to trial here. He has been a significant presence in the courtroom, but Waters is by no means running the show.

In fact, on several occasions, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge G. Keith Wisot has told jurors to ignore testimony Waters gave because it was beyond the scope of a question posed to him or his remarks were deemed to be uncalled-for opinion.

“The experience has really been quite novel,” Waters said in an interview. “I’ve been wondering to myself, how do I handle my relations with the jury, do I look at them, make a play to them, look at the attorney,” while being questioned.

The judge thought he did well on the witness stand, but won’t know for sure until the jury returns its verdict. Deliberations begin Monday.

Waters said the trial has been a useful learning experience.

“I think every trial judge, and maybe every appellate judge, should become a litigant and be subjected to the demands of the system,” Waters said. “It might have some educational value to them when they resume their position on the bench.”

For the first time since becoming an attorney nearly 50 years ago, Waters said he now has some doubts about whether cross-examination really brings out the truth.

“My cross-examiner was particularly skilled at asking questions that called for a yes or no answer,” Waters said of attorney Guy O. Kornblum of San Francisco. Waters said he felt that the strictures under which he was operating as a witness made it difficult to tell the full story.

“I perhaps will give more thought about whether I should exercise greater latitude in allowing someone to explain himself when I’m back on the bench,” Waters said.

*

Waters, a Republican and longtime Establishment figure, earlier in his life was a state legislator, U.S. attorney and successful private lawyer. He hardly seems like the type to take on his insurance company, United Services Automobile Assn., in what has become a three-year pitched battle.

At the start, right after the fire, it seemed as if Waters’ claim would be easily resolved. USAA adjuster Kevin Bushaw came to the large house, did an inspection and immediately wrote the couple a $50,000 check for anticipated expenses they would incur.

Bushaw also told the Waterses he was amenable to having the repairs done by TMLC, a construction company that employed the couple’s son, Laughlin Waters Jr., known as “Loc Junior.”

But a clash soon developed over how much it would cost to bring the large Mediterranean-style house back to the condition it was in before the blaze. USAA officials said the preliminary bids prepared by TMLC were too high.

Another company, used frequently by USAA, subsequently prepared a bid that was considerably lower.

Several sets of revised bids were proposed by both sides, but the haggling went on and on. After seven months, the judge said he and his wife, Voula, decided to sue because USAA, one of the nation’s largest insurance carriers, had “low-balled” them in an attempt to get the couple to accept a bid lower than they believed necessary to cover the repair costs.

“They forced us into this position by delaying and stringing it out, keeping us out of our home for 15 months, when we could have been back in our home in four months,” Waters said.

Shortly after the couple sued, USAA agreed to accept the TMLC bid of $424,000 to repair the house, and renovations by their son’s company began. The insurance company also paid the couple $11,000 a month in relocation expenses for the 15 months they were out of the house. But the angry couple did not drop their suit. They insist they are motivated less by personal gain than by a desire to punish USAA.

“I thought if they would try to do this to people like us, they certainly could do it to others less able to weather this tribulation,” the judge said.

*

He and his wife allege USAA should pay damages for acting in bad faith and inflicting emotional distress on them, particularly Voula Waters, who was hospitalized during the dispute.

However, defense lawyer Kornblum has told jurors that the Waterses’ claim is groundless. He said USAA acted promptly and fairly. Kornblum described in detail the numerous meetings held over a period of months before the couple sued. The defense portrayed them as stubborn and unreasonable.

The two sides were apart by only $120,000 at the time the suit was filed. But the case, like much contemporary litigation, rapidly metastasized and the legal costs have run into the low millions. Though no dollar amount for damages has been specified, the judge and his wife are seeking compensation for “bad faith” and “infliction of emotional distress.”

Their chief lawyer is William Shernoff of Claremont, considered one of the state’s top plaintiffs’ insurance lawyers. He, his partner Frank Darras and a legal assistant were in court with their judge-client every day.

Kornblum, USAA’s lead lawyer, was joined by Century City attorney Paul R. Fine and a laptop computer at the counsel table and had at least one other lawyer in the courtroom for assistance, as well as a bevy of USAA officials and a jury psychologist.

The case has been aggressively litigated from the start. Each side has filed sanctions motions against the other for alleged misconduct, but none have been awarded thus far.

*

Around the federal courthouse, a few blocks from where the trial is being held, Waters is considered calm and congenial. But there were several moments on the witness stand when he got downright testy.

He clashed frequently with Kornblum. Near the end of cross-examination Thursday, Kornblum tried several times to get Waters to concede a point. Waters simply would not give an increasingly exasperated Kornblum the answer he wanted.

“I’m not trying to be evasive,” Waters said. Then, as he offered another version of an answer, defense lawyer Fine rose from the table and started to whisper something in Kornblum’s ear.

“Excuse me, Mr. Fine. I didn’t mean to interrupt your conversation,” Waters declared tartly, drawing murmurs and some laughter.

Waters said he would sue again under the same circumstances. But he acknowledged that the process has been lengthy and that like other litigants he may soon face yet another delay: “If we win,” he said, “there undoubtedly will be an appeal.”