Court rules South Coast Plaza store can be sued

Andrew Edwards

An appeals court ruled last week that the ex-wife of Angels first

baseman Darin Erstad can sue a South Coast Plaza jeweler over an

alleged misrepresentation of the value of her engagement ring.

The athlete was not a party to the lawsuit, but the California 4th

District Court of Appeal published an opinion on Jan. 12 that allowed

his ex-wife, Sarah Schauer, to sue based on her claim that the

diamond in her ring was misleadingly graded. However, the court threw

out her allegations of fraud.

South Coast Plaza jewelers Black, Starr and Frost sold the ring,

and their Costa Mesa attorney, James Daniels, characterized the

ruling as a vindication for his client.

“The court threw out 90% of the lawsuit and absolved Black, Starr

and Frost of any wrongdoing,” Daniels said.

The opinion overturned an earlier dismissal of Schauer’s suit in

Orange County Superior Court.

The essence of the court’s ruling was that since Erstad purchased

the ring for Schauer, she can make a claim against the store based on

the ring’s express warranty. An express warranty is a written or oral

statement that describes a product when it is sold. In this case,

Schauer could claim breach of warranty based on her claim that the

ring was incorrectly graded.

The court ruled she cannot file a fraud complaint, since she did

not negotiate the sale. The ruling did not address whether any breach

of warranty occurred.

The ring was purchased by Erstad for Schauer on Aug. 15, 1999, for

more than $43,000, according to the opinion. A diamond on the ring

was represented by the store as having a high clarity rating of SI1.

The rating was later certified by a gemologist with the European

Gemological Laboratory.

Erstad and Schauer divorced in July of 2001, and in June 2002,

Schauer obtained a second rating of her diamond from the Gemological

Institute of America’s Gem Trade Laboratory. The second rating

described the diamond’s clarity as SI2, meaning imperfections are

easily visible with a scope. Based on this rating, Schauer argued the

diamond was worth $23,000 less than what her ex-husband paid for it.

Schauer’s attorney, Mark Plummer described the American group’s

ratings as more stringent than the European group’s, adding his

belief that purchasers unaware of possible differences between

graders can be taken advantage of.

“You can’t expect a consumer to pull out a monocle and grade their

own diamond,” he said.

With the case reopened, both Plummer and Daniels said they were

negotiating a possible settlement, though Daniels said his client

would only settle if an agreement made “economic sense.” Daniels and

the jewelers believe any difference between the sale price and the

gem’s actual value is smaller than the amount argued by Schauer.