U-Haul Hit With Three Times the Damages for Stealing Customer's Cherished Personal Property

"Given the nature of this business and the trust that individuals place in the business for the safekeeping of their belongings, this theft is a major failing."  

​The Arbitrator in this matter did not mince words when he found U-Haul liable for stealing and destroying nearly $30,000 worth of its customer’s personal belongings, awarding the customer over $200,000 in damages and attorneys’ fees.  Although every penny was owed, this award marks a significant victory for consumers everywhere and lets corporations know that they can’t rely on a team of highly paid attorneys and one-sided contracts to escape liability for their intentional acts.

Background

In 2019, the customer in this case, Jennifer Viergutz, rented a storage unit at U-Haul's Vacaville location, expecting her valuables—including antiques, family keepsakes, and furniture—would be stored safely while she worked toward her dream of owning her own home.  For over three years, she paid rent on time and trusted U-Haul with her most cherished possessions.
​
But when Jennifer finally bought her home and planned to move her belongings, U-Haul shattered that dream. Instead of a joyous transition into her new home, Jennifer found herself locked in a nearly two-year legal battle to recover the value of her stolen property and the emotional distress it caused her.

The Theft

In 2019, the customer in this case, Jennifer, rented a storage unit at U-Haul's Vacaville location, expecting her valuables—including antiques, family keepsakes, and furniture—would be stored safely while she worked toward her dream of owning her own home.  For over three years, she paid rent on time and trusted U-Haul with her most cherished possessions.
​
But when Jennifer finally bought her home and planned to move her belongings, U-Haul shattered that dream. Instead of a joyous transition into her new home, Jennifer found herself locked in a nearly two-year legal battle to recover the value of her stolen property and the emotional distress it caused her.

U-Haul's Failed Defense

When Jennifer sought justice, U-Haul had the audacity to claim that it simply made a mistake and argue that its liability was limited due to provisions buried in the rental agreement. U-Haul in fact claimed that Jennifer had herself violated the terms by storing items valued over $15,000, and that certain types of valuables and sentimental items she stored were “prohibited.” U-Haul tried to use these arguments and the threat of a Section 998 Offer to Compromise to bully Jennifer into taking just a fraction of what she was ultimately awarded.

​But Jennifer stood tall, and the Arbitrator wasn’t fooled. Through time records and cross-examination, Jennifer was able to prove that the manager intentionally cut the lock and cleared out the unit. In the Arbitrator’s own words, the manager’s actions “were willful, deliberate and intentional and were not a mistake or some sort of mistake.” And when pressed to explain the missing items, U-Haul couldn’t produce key evidence, including surveillance footage and emails. Under the weight of conflicting and unbelievable testimony, the entire defense crumbled and the Arbitrator found that U-Haul was trying to cover its tracks.

The Ruling: Three Times Damages and More

​The Arbitrator ruled that U-Haul committed “a significant theft,” thereby invalidating their contract defenses. Under California law, no company can use a contract to shield itself from liability for intentional misconduct. Citing California Penal Code section 496, the Arbitrator awarded Jennifer treble damages—triple the amount of her property’s value—along with compensation for emotional distress and legal fees, totaling more than $200,000.

Conclusion

​This case serves as a powerful reminder for billion-dollar corporations, like U-Haul, that they can’t hide behind high-priced attorneys and the fine print in their contracts to escape liability. 

​NorCal Advocates was honored to fight for Jennifer and, with her permission, to share her story.  A copy of the Arbitrator’s ruling can be found HERE.​