Los Angeles County fire victims sue AAA and USAA, alleging insurance fraud
Los Angeles County fire victims have filed lawsuits against three large home insurers alleging they were systematically underinsured, leaving them without enough money to replace or rebuild their homes after the Jan. 7 blazes.
The twin lawsuits, filed Wednesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court, allege that USAA, a Texas-based insurer that serves the military community, and two insurers affiliated with AAA for years underestimated the replacement cost of the homes, lulling the policyholders into buying inadequate coverage.
"These families paid their premiums, trusted their insurers, and did everything right," attorney Gregory L. Bentley said in a statement. "But when disaster struck, they learned their coverage was little more than an illusion. These companies promised peace of mind, but instead left their members stranded, homeless, and hopeless."
The lawsuits allege fraud, negligence, breach of contract and other causes of action, and seek damages and reform of the insurers' practices.
Bekah Nelson, lead communications director for USAA, said that the company was reviewing the lawsuit and could not comment on specifics, but said "USAA's dedication to outstanding member service is widely recognized."
"When wildfires struck Southern California, our teams were on the ground within days, working to support our members in their time of need. To date, we have paid nearly $1.4 billion to help members recover from their losses," she said, adding the company has made payments on more than 90% of homeowner claims.
A spokesperson for CSAA Insurance Exchange, which primarily serves AAA members in Northern California, said it does not comment on pending litigation. A spokesperson for the Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club, which serves AAA members in Southern California, also declined comment.
The lawsuits open a new front in the litigation that has been spawned by the catastrophic fires, which caused at least 29 deaths and damaged or destroyed more than 16,000 homes and businesses in Altadena, Pacific Palisades and other communities.
Several lawsuits have been filed against the California Fair Plan Assn., the state's insurer of last resort, alleging that it is not adequately handling smoke-damage claims arising out of the fires.
More than 100 of the state's licensed home insurers, including the CSAA, USAA and the Interinsurance Exchange, are defendants in an April lawsuit accusing the companies of colluding to drop policyholders and force them onto the FAIR Plan in order to reduce their claims exposure. The plan's policies typically cost more and offer less coverage than traditional commercial insurance.
The lawsuits filed Wednesday, which are virtually identical except for details pertaining to the different defendants, allege that the problem of underinsurance is "pervasive" and stems from "cost estimator software many insurers use to recommend coverage limits to insureds," as well as "poor design choices, perverse profit and commission incentives, volume business, and other shortcomings."
The lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed against the two AAA insurers, James and Lisa Fulker, bought a three-bedroom, two-bathroom, 1,872-square-foot home on Kingsport Drive in Malibu in 2020, according to the lawsuit.
The newly renovated home - which featured a kitchen with a center island, quartz countertops, high ceilings, a fireplace, an entertainment patio and a master suite with a walk-in closet and spa-like bath - had $713,000 in primary dwelling coverage and 125% extended replacement cost coverage, the lawsuit states.
After the fires, however, the couple found their coverage was inadequate as they received estimates of at least $800 per square foot or more to rebuild, far exceeding the $380-per-square-foot calculations of their insurer, the lawsuit states.
The lead plaintiffs in the USAA lawsuit, Ethan and Marijana Alexander, had a 2,135-square-foot, four-bedroom, three-bathroom, near-custom home on Bienveneda Avenue in Pacific Palisades that they bought in 2018, according to the lawsuit.
The home had $584,000 in dwelling coverage and a 25% home protection endorsement of $146,000, the lawsuit states.
Even with the additional coverage, the complaint alleges the couple don't have adequate insurance to rebuild, with USAA calculating the cost at $342 per square foot and the couple receiving estimates at more than $850 to $1,000 per square foot, the lawsuit states.
Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
UBS faces $26B in capital requirements from Swiss bank reforms, Bloomberg says
UBS (UBS) is facing as much as $26B in capital requirements to be phased over the next decade under banking reform proposals from the Swiss government, Bastian Benrath-Wright and Noele Illien of Bloomberg reports. The largest hit to the bank is set to come from a proposal that would require the company to increase the capital held at home against its stakes in foreign units to 100% from the current 60%. The government estimates this will force UBS to add as much as $23B in capital to its Swiss-based main unit. Easily unpack a company's performance with TipRanks' new KPI Data for smart investment decisions Receive undervalued, market resilient stocks right to your inbox with TipRanks' Smart Value Newsletter Published first on TheFly – the ultimate source for real-time, market-moving breaking financial news. Try Now>> See Insiders' Hot Stocks on TipRanks >> Read More on UBS: Disclaimer & DisclosureReport an Issue UBS Lowers Price Target on Berkshire Hathaway Stock (BRK.B) as 'Buffett Premium' Ends UBS Group AG Faces Sell Rating Amid Regulatory Uncertainty and Capital Challenges UBS call volume above normal and directionally bullish UBS upgraded to Buy from Hold at Jefferies Unusually active option classes on open May 27th Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
House GOP Fears Trump-Elon Breakup Might Get In ‘Big, Beautiful' Bill's Way
House Republicans are hoping the public breakup between President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk does not last very long for the sake of the 'big, beautiful' reconciliation bill. Thursday's news cycle was dominated by the clash between the President and the world's richest man and their petty attacks on each other — which included mentions of Jeffrey Epstein, impeachment, black-eye makeup, as well as a back and forth over the contents of the reconciliation package the House recently passed. The showdown between the two appears to have House Republicans worried that more unwanted attention — pointing to the poison pills in the House package — would be on the reconciliation bill they are calling the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. As we've been reporting for some time, House Republicans have attempted to disguise their sweeping cuts to the social safety net by referring to the changes as 'reforms' like enacting work requirements for Medicaid, among other things. 'I just hope it resolves quickly, for the sake of the country,' House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) told CNBC Friday morning. Other House Republicans are also preaching deescalation for the sake of the bill they spent weeks fighting with each other over. 'Both of them have paid a tremendous price personally for this country, and I think at the end of the day, they're both going to put the country first,' Rep. Michael Cloud (R-TX) said, according to Politico. 'And them working together is certainly far more better for the country.' Meanwhile, Department of Government Efficiency caucus Chair Aaron Bean (R-FL) said Friday he was 'shocked and dismayed' to see his 'two friends fighting,' adding that he remains optimistic that the former allies can work it out. 'I believe there's a Diet Coke in their future, that they can settle it and cooler heads will prevail,' Bean said. 'We need them together. We need to be united, and we're stronger together. So I'm very optimistic that there will be a happy ending very soon.' — Emine Yücel A look into Rep. Nancy Mace's (R-SC) dirty stalling tactics that helped her ultimately block Democrats on the House Oversight Committee from subpoenaing Elon Musk this week — even though not enough Republicans were initially present to override the effort. Some thoughts on the creator of Succession's new, satirical movie Mountainhead, and what it tells us about our current cultural moment, as the Fox News echo chamber, social media and AI merge to create a society in which reality is elusive. Let's dig in. Washington was consumed with drama related to Elon Musk on Thursday afternoon as the megabillionaire who spearheaded the so-called Department of Government Efficiency launched into a public social media spat with President Trump. But turmoil surrounding the President's former ally actually started earlier that morning when tensions over Musk essentially caused the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to short circuit and grind to a halt. This bizarre scene was a perfect distillation of how Congress is (or depending on your view, isn't) working in the second Trump era, with MAGA partisans going to cartoonish lengths to protect the president and his allies from scrutiny. The episode took place in a hearing that was nominally about the use of artificial intelligence. In his opening remarks, Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) noted how Musk, whose DOGE minions have used AI to siphon up federal data and slash government programs, has changed that conversation. 'Optimizing the federal government's use of technology has long been a bipartisan priority of this committee,' Lynch said. 'We cannot sit here, however, and have the traditional bipartisan conversation about federal IT modernization without acknowledging the fact that the Trump administration, Elon Musk, and DOGE are leading technology initiatives that threaten the privacy and security of all Americans and undermine our government and the vital services it provides.' Following those remarks, Lynch moved to subpoena Musk to appear before the committee. His motion was quickly seconded. After last year's election, Republicans have a majority in the House and its committees. But at the time of Lynch's motion, one Democratic member said only six of the 25 Republicans on Oversight were present. These absences theoretically meant the Democrats had a temporary majority needed to issue the subpoena. However, this effort to have the committee dedicated to oversight provide some actual oversight of Musk was quickly derailed. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), who was serving as chairwoman, almost immediately called to 'suspend' the proceedings. She then presided over a more than twenty minute delay as she strained the bounds of normal procedure to buy time for her colleagues to make their way to the hearing. The extended interlude was filled with surreal scenes as Democratic members attempted to question Mace and move forward with business as usual. At one point, even though Republicans were evidently outnumbered and outvoted, Mace declared that they had won a voice vote to consider a motion to table Lynch's motion. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) attempted to speak at this point and was shut down. 'I love you,' Mace said to him. 'This is not debatable.' Mace did not respond to a request for comment. At another point, as she swatted away Democrats' efforts to hold the vote, Mace seemed to wink. She also called Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) 'babe' when the congresswoman asked to do a roll call 'so we can determine if y'all really have the votes.' 'No ma'am,' Mace replied. As Democrats began to openly note that Mace's stonewalling appeared to be a fairly unprecedented effort to allow absent Republican members the time to filter in, Mace continually shut down discussion and efforts to hold a vote. One Republican member responded to an inquiry about whether they were following rules by noting that Democrats had lost the last election. That comment made the situation on Capitol Hill quite plain: After winning the election, Trump and his partisans are willing to throw out any traditional rule book. After about twenty minutes and twenty seven seconds, Mace allowed the vote to proceed. As she checked the numbers with the clerk, it was apparent the Republicans were still coming up short. Mace then allowed Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) and Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO), who had since slipped in, to vote. With those two final additions and the twenty minute-plus standstill, Republicans were able to table the effort to subpoena Musk by a vote of 21-20. In a statement to TPM, Lynch accused the GOP members of ' refusing to exercise Congressional authority on behalf of the American people to demand answers and accountability for the destruction, chaos, and cruelty Elon Musk and DOGE have unleashed on our government and on communities nationwide.' 'It is disturbing that Republicans would rather shield the richest man in the world from testifying publicly than fight for the folks who rely on VA health care, Social Security benefits, weather services, humanitarian aid, scientific research, and more vital programs and services that have been decimated by Elon Musk's chainsaw,' Lynch said, adding, 'The Oversight Committee was made for this moment, and Republicans are failing the American people by refusing to do their jobs. Just because Elon Musk has turned in his ID badge does not mean he can walk away from the monstrosity he has created and the permanent damage left in his wake.' — Hunter Walker 'I call this alternate reality, I call this place where these folks live, Bullshit Mountain,' Jon Stewart told the crowd during The Rumble in the Air Conditioned Auditorium debate with Bill O'Reilly in 2012. 'On Bullshit Mountain,' Stewart went on, 'our problems are amplified and the solutions simplified.' Bullshit Mountain would become Stewart's enduring metaphor for Fox News in the second half of the Obama presidency. It was a convenient shorthand to explain how Fox pundits could routinely espouse conspiratorial nonsense or fixate on an obscure event with seemingly no broad implications for the American public and use it as proof positive of the country's imminent collapse. Bullshit Mountain was an acknowledgment that the two major political parties didn't merely have different opinions on how to solve the country's problems, but increasingly were living in two different realities with entirely different problems. There was also the non-subtle accusation of cynicism in the name Bullshit Mountain. Maybe the audience believed this crap, but the executives and the anchors knew it was bullshit, right? In Jesse Armstrong's breakout show, 'Succession,' he satirized a fictional version of the Murdoch empire which took us behind the scenes of Bullshit Mountain. In Armstrong's interpretation of this world, there were the serious people who understood how to play the game and accumulate power, and those who were not serious, who didn't know how to play the game, or worse, didn't know it was a game at all. In his follow-up to Succession, HBO's new made-for-TV movie Mountainhead, Armstrong seems to acknowledge that Bullshit Mountain may no longer be a place created and controlled by serious people, that the bullshit from which the mountain is made may have broken confinement and swamped us all. Bullshit Mountain may now be where we all live — our dominant reality. Centered on a foursome of ultrarich tech founders (all men) who gather at a mountain lodge for a poker game as the world falls apart after the release of the AI-powered social network they all had some role in creating, Mountainhead depicts a world where seriousness might be a detriment to world dominance. 'Nothing means anything and everything is funny,' the founder of the AI social network explains when confronted by a litany of abuses enabled by his product, including a video of a kid juggling severed feet. The technology these founders have created has effectively dissolved any sense of shared reality by allowing anyone to create and propagate alternate realities which leads to the unraveling of the global order. But more interesting than the consequences of this technology, which we are in many ways already aware of, is the way in which the founders have isolated themselves from their own reality, both intentionally and unintentionally. After about 30 mins of dialogue laced in the idiomatic gibberish of Silicon Valley … 'first principles' .. 'post-human'… 'decel' … 'p(doom)' … 'game theory' … 'chunky numbers' … you realize these characters have nothing meaningful to say to each other, whether socially or in response to the global catastrophe they helped create. While there is a tinge of the tragic in their inability to communicate emotionally with each other, there is also something powerful in the artifice of their language, which protects them from having to meaningfully take responsibility for their actions. Viewing the potential collapse of the world through their screens, a vantage point from which nothing can be known for certain, the artificiality of their language lends an artificiality to the events, regardless of whether or not they are really happening. The collapse of a country's economy gets referred to as 'de minimis,' news of the mayor of Paris's assassination becomes an example of the 'compound distillation effect of the content.' But when the four characters end up bunkered in the basement, erroneously fearing retaliation from Iran's Revolutionary Guard, it's clear that they are as susceptible to the fake reality their technology has created as any of its users. Whether you find Mountainhead successful satire may depend on your priors. However, in the wake of DOGE, Elon's takeover and remaking of Twitter and the enthusiasm with which our major AI companies are cheerleading a new cold war with China, it's hardly a work of speculative fiction. In Jon Stewart's farewell speech from the Daily Show in 2015, he claimed that the bullshitters were getting lazy and that vigilance was our best defense. But his framing assumed a continued dichotomy between the bullshitters and the bullshited. He didn't offer any advice on what to do when there's no longer a difference. — Derick Dirmaier
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Experts uncover unexpected benefits of combining solar panels with livestock: 'Enough ... energy to power 70,000 homes'
The Myrtle solar farm in Brazoria County, Texas, is a shining example of sustainability that spans 2,400 acres of former pasture land and eliminates the need for fuel-powered lawnmowers. The facility, which was completed in 2023, is one of many renewable energy projects that have helped keep the state in the top three for installed solar capacity, alongside California and Florida. It is run by TotalEnergies, a Paris-based oil company, and features 705,000 photovoltaic cells and a herd of grass-munching sheep to help maintain the landscape, according to a report by ABC13. "Myrtle renewable power plant consists of two parts. One is a solar power plant of 380 megawatts that is generating enough clean and clear energy to power 70,000 homes," said Ahmed Sari, a construction manager who oversaw the project and spoke to the outlet. The solar power plant is complemented by a 225-megawatt battery storage system that's connected to support the local electrical grid as needed. These are crucial to expanding renewable resources such as solar and wind, helping store energy for use during peak demand hours. Agrivoltaics is a term used to describe the combination of solar power and farming, which frequently produces harmonious results. Many of these facilities use the shade provided by solar panels to give solace to crops and livestock while fostering natural habitats for pollinators. "We have sheep grazing under the solar panels in order to control vegetation in a very sustainable manner," said Marie Maitre, Total's external communications manager, per the report. The sheep get to enjoy a considerable amount of grazing land and shade, and groundskeepers don't need to use gas-guzzling lawnmowers or dangerous pesticides. This reduces maintenance costs, potentially lowering rates for consumers. Solar and wind installations accounted for 97.8% of all new U.S. electrical capacity in the first quarter of 2025, while dirty fuels such as gas and oil made up the meager difference, proving that the shift to more sustainable energy sources is gaining traction. Tesla and Honda have made deals to power their local operations with solar power generated in the state, and a new photovoltaic facility began production earlier this year. Do you think solar panels are an eyesore? Absolutely not Only in certain areas They always look bad I don't have an opinion Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Recent data showed that Texas has nearly 80% more solar, wind, and battery capacity combined than California, although the Golden State may have an edge in solar installations alone. A little competition can only help in our quest to shift to sustainable energy and ditch pollution-generating alternatives. "We are going to need all the energy types that we can have in order to meet the growing demand for energy of our growing world population," Maitre concluded. Join our free newsletter for weekly updates on the latest innovations improving our lives and shaping our future, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
