California FAIR Plan Association v. Garnes
In 2018,
Marlene Garnes’ home in Richmond, California was badly damaged in a
fire. She filed a claim under her FAIR fire insurance policy with the
California Fair Plan Association, seeking $320,549, less depreciation,
for the cost of repairing her home; Garnes’ policy had a limit of
$425,000. The Association responded that her policy entitled her to no
more than the $75,000 fair market value of her house. FAIR filed suit,
seeking a declaration of Garnes’ rights under her policy. The trial
court entered a judgment in favor of FAIR, finding that the association
was only liable for the $75,000 market value of Garnes’ homes. On
appeal, The Court reversed this decision, holding that FAIR was required
to compensate Marlene Garnes for the actual cost of repairing her home,
less depreciation.
The California Supreme Court affirmed the
decision of the First Appellate District, holding that an insured’s
measure of damages is the actual cost of repairing a home; and the
insurance company must pay to repair the home even if the cost of repair
exceeds the home’s fair market value. The judgment is seen as a major
win for homeowners and an equal loss for insurers who can no longer
restrict the policy holder’s recovery to the market value of the home.
California FAIR Plan Association v. Lara
In
December 2019, the California FAIR Plan Association filed a lawsuit
against Ricardo Lara, in his official capacity as the Insurance
Commissioner of the State of California. The lawsuit comes on the heels
of Department of Insurance’s mandate that the FAIR association offers
comprehensive homeowners’ insurance, adding other perils like water
damage, theft, and personal liability to existing fire coverage. The
mandate comes as the result of a particularly heinous 2018 wildfire
season which resulted in insurance carriers reducing coverage; the
Associated Press reported that private insurers dropped coverage for
more than 350,000 policyholders in wildfire-prone areas since 2015.
Commissioner Lara said that he hoped the order would save policyholders
from the burden of having to purchase multiple insurance policies.
However, the FAIR Association claims that the mandate is illegal because
it interferes with FAIR’s plan to encourage “maximum use” of the
private insurance market. The case is currently pending.
Fadeeff v. State Farm Insurance Co.
The
Fadeeff family’s home was badly smoke damaged, but not destroyed, by
the Hidden Valley Fire that burned more than 75,000 acres of land across
Northern California in 2015. State Farm paid the family $50,000 after
its initial adjuster reported smoke and soot on the interior walls,
ceilings, carpeting, exterior, and deck; the Fadeeffs hired a licensed
insurance adjuster and submitted supplemental claims for additional
repairs, including interior smoke damage and exterior paint damage
caused by pressure washing, totaling $75,000. State Farm then used an
unlicensed, independent adjuster to investigate the supplemental claims
which were then denied. The Fadeeffs filed a bad faith lawsuit against
State Farm and a Mendocino County Superior Judge granted State Farm’s
motion for summary judgment under the “genuine dispute” doctrine.
Under
the genuine dispute doctrine, an insurer denying payment of policy
benefits is insulated from bad faith claims so long as there is a
“genuine dispute” about the existence of coverage, even though the
insurer might be liable for breach of contract. The Fadeeffs appealed
the decision, claiming that it demonstrates that the genuine dispute
doctrine is “wildly overused” by insurers. On June 8, 2020, the First
District Court of Appeals, in a blow to insurers, found that expert
testimony does not automatically insulate an insurer from bad faith
claims and that questions of whether and expert’s inspection was biased
is a question better left to the jury. The impact of this Court’s
decision will continue to be revealed in coming years of insurance
litigation.
PG&E Lawsuit
As of 2024,
wildfire litigation remains a significant and ongoing issue for Pacific
Gas and Electric (PG&E). PG&E, which filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy in January 2019, has faced substantial legal and financial
challenges due to its role in numerous catastrophic wildfires in
California. Filing for bankruptcy was a strategic move to resolve
extensive claims related to wildfire damages and to address its
financial instability. As part of its bankruptcy proceedings, PG&E
proposed a reorganization plan that included a $13.5 billion settlement
to compensate wildfire victims and to bolster fire prevention measures.
On
September 26, 2019, the California Public Utilities Commissions (CPCU)
opened a formal proceeding to evaluate the implications of PG&E’s
proposed reorganization plan, focusing on ratepayer impacts and ensuring
alignment with California’s climate goals. By July 1, 2020, PG&E
successfully emerged from bankruptcy, having received CPCU approval for
its reorganization plan with conditions aimed at improving its safety
practices and financial health. Despite emerging from bankruptcy,
PG&E’s legal troubles persist. Throughout 2023 and 2024, PG&E
has continued to face litigation related to its involvement in
wildfires, with ongoing lawsuits from victims and regulatory
investigations into its safety practices.
Hawaiian Electric
Hawaiian
Electric is facing substantial legal challenges related to its
involvement in the catastrophic wildfires that struck Maui, particularly
the devastating Lahaina fire in August 2023. Lawsuits filed against the
company alleged that its equipment and maintenance practices
contributed to the fires’ ignition and severity. Plaintiffs, including
local residents, business owners, and government entities, contended
that Hawaiian Electric’s failure to properly maintain its power lines
and adhere to safety protocols exacerbated the damage. In March 2024, a
preliminary ruling was made in one of the high-profile cases. A judge
found sufficient evidence to allow plaintiffs to continue pursuing
extensive damages for property loss, business interruptions, and
environmental harm.
Amidst these legal battles, Hawaiian Electric
has been engaged in negotiations to settle the wildfire claims and
avoid a fate similar to PG&E’s bankruptcy. Reports indicate that the
company is nearing a settlement agreement aimed at addressing the
financial and legal fallout from the fires. The proposed settlement is
designed to provide compensation to affected parties while avoiding a
lengthy and costly bankruptcy process like PG&E’s.