Court of Appeal Revives Bad Faith Suit Against State Farm Over Wildfire Damage
The decision is a blow to insurers who have relied on the so-called "genuine dispute" doctrine to knock out bad faith claims pretrial.
June 09, 2020 at 06:56 PM
4 minute read
A California appellate court has revived a bad faith insurance lawsuit against State Farm General Insurance Co. brought by a family whose home was damaged in a 2015 California wildfire.
In a decision that was issued last month and published Monday, the First District Court of Appeal found that expert testimony does not automatically insulate an insurer from bad faith claims and that questions of whether an expert's inspection was biased is a jury question.
The decision reverses a decision from a Mendocino County Superior Judge Jeanine Nadel who granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment under the so-called "genuine dispute" doctrine. Under the doctrine, an insurer denying or delaying payment of policy benefits is immune from bad faith claims so long as there's a genuine dispute about the existence of coverage or the amount, even though the insurer might be liable for breach of contract.
Dylan Schaffer of Kerley Schaffer, who represents the plaintiffs in the case, Leonard and Patricia Fadeeff—whose home in Hidden Valley Lake was smoke damaged but not destroyed in the 2015 Valley Fire that burned more than 75,000 acres in Northern California—said that the decision offers clarity on a doctrine that's "wildly overused" by insurers.
"The opinion is an acknowledgment that to the extent that an insured can point to bias, that's a jury question," Schaffer said.
According to the decision, State Farm has paid $50,000 to the Fadeeff family after the initial adjuster the company sent to the home reported smoke and soot on the interior walls, ceilings and carpeting, and on the exterior, deck and handrail. The Fadeeffs hired another licensed adjuster and submitted supplemental claims for additional repairs, including interior smoke damage and exterior paint damage caused by pressure washing, totaling about $75,000.
State Farm used a different independent adjuster James Carpenter, who isn't a licensed adjuster in the state to investigate the supplemental claims. Carpenter denied the Fadeeffs' supplemental claims for damage to the interior carpet and wallpaper and the exterior paint finding that the damage was due to typical wear, tear and deterioration, even though State Farm's earlier adjuster had concluded that the home was "well maintained with no deferred maintenance."
In the decision, First District Justice Marla Miller called attention to the apparent contradictory conclusions reached by the two adjusters hired by State Farm. "Was there preexisting wear and tear or was there damage to a well-maintained home by power washing after a wildfire?" Miller wrote, in an opinion joined by Presiding Justice J. Anthony Kline and Justice James Richman. "To ask the question shows that State Farm has not established that it is 'undisputed or indisputable that the basis for the insurer's denial of benefits was reasonable.'"
A spokesman for State Farm didn't immediately provide any comment on the decision. The company was represented by Sandra Stone of Pacific Law Partners, who didn't respond to a request for comment.
Schaffer, the Fadeeffs' lawyer, said that underlying dispute is only over a few hundred thousand dollars, his firm thought that it was important to take up on appeal because of the amount of "general dispute" arguments they're seeing insurers make in bad faith cases, especially in cases involving homes that have been damaged but not destroyed in recent wildfires across the state.
"This is not a very big case from a purely financial standpoint, but we thought it was the right way to explain to the court that this doctrine should be very narrowly applied," he said. "I hope that this opinion and opinions like it will continue to roll out saying 'No, no, no. This is a jury question.'"
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFederal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
2 minute readBiden commutes sentences for 37 of 40 federal death row inmates, including two convicted of California murders
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250