California court rules state insurance policy on smoke damage is unlawful
A
Home insurance broadly covers fire damage, but there is a growing dispute over what damage must be covered when flames don’t torch the property. The decision Tuesday by
The specific case involved
With high premiums and basic coverage, the FAIR Plan was designed as a temporary safety net until policyholders could find a more permanent option. Today, it has become the default option for many, with the number of residential policies reaching 550,000 in March, more than double from 2020, state data shows.
Reports from other urban wildfires, in which building materials, appliances, cars and more burn at incredibly high temperatures, show increased levels of heavy metals including lead and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) such as benzene that are tied to negative health risks. But insurance companies haven’t standardized testing for those contaminants.
The FAIR Plan has been scrutinized for years over allegations of summarily denying smoke damage claims unless there’s proof of permanent physical change, even though the
Aliff's lawsuit claims that FAIR Plan at the time offered a fraction of the money he expected to cover the costs to remediate the damages, citing a partial denial letter that said the fire debris could be cleaned up –- and therefore didn’t qualify for coverage as a “direct physical loss” to the home.
“The things that burn are terrifying like lead, cyanide. It’s not possible to get that out with Swiffer,” said Aliff’s attorney,
Schaffer, who is also the attorney in a number of other lawsuits against the FAIR Plan related to the smoke damage issue, said the new court ruling was a game-changer in
“It is the most important decision in
The ruling said the way the FAIR Plan limits smoke damage coverage to its definition of “direct physical loss” was a violation of the law, stating that “this language limits coverage reasonably expected by an insured in a manner which is not conspicuous, plain and clear.”
The judge also said it was unlawful that the FAIR Plan required smoke damage to be “visible to the unaided human eye” or capable of being “detected by the unaided human nose of an average person” rather than "the subjective senses of (the insured) or by laboratory testing.”
“Being unable to resort to their own senses or laboratory tests, it is entirely unclear how an insured could determine whether a particular loss is covered or not,” the court decision noted.
FAIR Plan spokeswoman
“Our goal is to continue providing fair and reasonable coverage for wildfire-related losses while maintaining the financial integrity of the FAIR Plan for all policyholders," McLean said in a statement.


CAMICO Appoints Ric Rosario as Chairman of the Board
United Risk Completes Acquisition of Pinnacle Underwriting Based in Sydney, Australia Expanding and Strengthening Operations in the Asia-Pacific and Middle East Regions in Key Lines of Business: Applied Underwriters
Advisor News
- Flourish brings private-bank-like cash solution to MassMutual’s network
- Majority of Americans concerned recent market highs are unsustainable
- GLP-1 users choose between medication and retirement saving
- Gen X and millennials seek new retirement model
- Are families ready for the costs of aging at home?
More Advisor NewsAnnuity News
- New class-action lawsuit targets Delaware Life over annuity disclosures
- A client remarried: Does their annuity still fit?
- Gen X and millennials seek new retirement model
- Global Atlantic names Dan Farrelly head of IMO and IBD channels
- A rising retirement challenge: The license to spend
More Annuity NewsHealth/Employee Benefits News
Life Insurance News