logo
California insurance regulator launches investigation into State Farm over claims from LA fires

California insurance regulator launches investigation into State Farm over claims from LA fires

The Hilla day ago

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California's top insurance regulator on Thursday launched an investigation into State Farm over the company's handling of claims from the January Los Angeles-area wildfires.
The investigation comes after survivors of the Palisades and Eaton fires said that the state's largest home insurer was delaying and mishandling claims regarding damage to their homes and possible contamination from smoke.
The blazes destroyed thousands of buildings around Los Angeles, killed 30 people and displaced thousands of others. They were estimated to be among the costliest natural disasters in U.S. history.
California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara said the investigation will review whether the company complied with state consumer protection and claim-handling laws.
'Californians deserve fair and comprehensive treatment from their insurance companies,' the Democrat said in a statement. 'No one should be left in uncertainty, forced to fight for what they are owed, or face endless delays that often lead consumers to give up.'
Survivors of the Eaton fire in Altadena have raised concerns about possible lead, asbestos and heavy metal contamination in their homes because of smoke.
State Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez, a Democrat representing Pasadena, in April called on Lara to launch a probe into the alleged mishandling of claims.
'The survivors of the Los Angeles County fires are experiencing financial and emotional hardships due to State Farm's delays and denials of their valid insurance claims,' she and other lawmakers said at the time. 'Despite years of faithfully paying premiums, they have been met with excessive documentation demands, denial of claims despite clear evidence, a convoluted and arduous claims process, and silence when seeking help after the disaster.'
State Farm has about 1 million home insurance customers in California.
Insurers including State Farm had difficulty doing business in California even before the wildfires. In 2023, State Farm and others stopped issuing residential policies because of the wildfire risk.
Last year, Lara unveiled regulations aimed at giving insurers more latitude to raise premiums in exchange for more policies in high-risk areas. State Farm said at the time the company was struggling.
The wildfires, which destroyed more than 16,000 buildings, made matters even worse.
In May, state regulators allowed State Farm to raise premiums 17% statewide for its California home insurance customers to help the company rebuild its capital after the costly wildfires.
State Farm initially sought a 22% rate increase for homeowners but revised it down a recent hearing before an administrative judge. The new rates in effect this month include a 38% hike for rental owners and 15% for tenants.
People who lost homes in the fires sued in April, alleging State Farm and other insurers colluded to 'suddenly and simultaneously' drop coverage or halt writing new policies in fire-prone areas, including areas that burned. That left the homeowners underinsured and struggling to rebuild, the lawsuit alleges.
The American Property Casualty Insurance Association, the largest national trade association representing home, auto and business insurers, called the lawsuits meritless, saying it monitors to ensure its members comply with the state's antitrust laws.
___
Associated Press writer Mead Gruver reported from Cheyenne, Wyoming.
___
Austin is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Follow Austin on X: @sophieadanna

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Surge in viewers leads ION TV to extend current 3-year broadcasting deal with WNBA
Surge in viewers leads ION TV to extend current 3-year broadcasting deal with WNBA

San Francisco Chronicle​

time14 minutes ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

Surge in viewers leads ION TV to extend current 3-year broadcasting deal with WNBA

NEW YORK (AP) — Caitlin Clark's arrival and a major surge in viewers over the past year led to ION Television reaching a multiyear agreement on Friday to extend its broadcasting partnership with the WNBA. ION, which is owned by the Cincinnati, Ohio-based, E.W. Scripps Company, did not reveal the length or value of the contract, which extends the network's original deal reached in 2023 to broadcast regular-season games and host a weekly studio show. The existing three-year deal is worth $13 million per season. In a release, ION said the average viewership for its WNBA Friday Night Spotlight show increased by 133% from 2023 to '24, and attracted more than 23 million unique viewers, including game coverage. The jump coincides with Clark's celebrated rookie season in Indiana last year. The network reaches more than 128 million homes though its various platforms. Last year, the WNBA struck an 11-year media rights deal with Disney, Amazon Prime and NBC that begins in 2026 and is worth about $200 million a year.

Federal judge blocks Trump's firing of Consumer Product Safety Commission members
Federal judge blocks Trump's firing of Consumer Product Safety Commission members

Yahoo

time15 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Federal judge blocks Trump's firing of Consumer Product Safety Commission members

BALTIMORE (AP) — A federal judge has blocked the terminations of three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission after they were fired by President Donald Trump in his effort to assert more power over independent federal agencies. The commission helps protect consumers from dangerous products by issuing recalls, suing errant companies and more. Trump announced last month his decision to fire the three Democrats on the five-member commission. They were serving seven-year terms after being nominated by President Joe Biden. After suing the Trump administration last month, the fired commissioners received a ruling in their favor Friday; it will likely be appealed. Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued the case was clearcut. Federal statute states that the president can fire commissioners 'for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office but for no other cause' — allegations that have not been made against the commissioners in question. But attorneys for the Trump administration assert that the statute is unconstitutional because the president's authority extends to dismissing federal employees who 'exercise significant executive power,' according to court filings. U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox agreed with the plaintiffs, declaring their dismissals unlawful. He had previously denied their request for a temporary restraining order, which would have reinstated them on an interim basis. That decision came just days after the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority declined to reinstate board members of two other independent agencies, endorsing a robust view of presidential power. The court said that the Constitution appears to give the president the authority to fire the board members 'without cause.' Its three liberal justices dissented. In his written opinion filed Friday, Maddox presented a more limited view of the president's authority, finding 'no constitutional defect' in the statute that prohibits such terminations. He ordered that the plaintiffs be allowed to resume their duties as product safety commissioners. The ruling adds to a larger ongoing legal battle over a 90-year-old Supreme Court decision known as Humphrey's Executor. In that case from 1935, the court unanimously held that presidents cannot fire independent board members without cause. The decision ushered in an era of powerful independent federal agencies charged with regulating labor relations, employment discrimination, the airwaves and much else. But it has long rankled conservative legal theorists who argue the modern administrative state gets the Constitution all wrong because such agencies should answer to the president. During a hearing before Maddox last week, arguments focused largely on the nature of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and its powers, specifically whether it exercises 'substantial executive authority.' Maddox, a Biden nominee, noted the difficulty of cleanly characterizing such functions. He also noted that Trump was breaking from precedent by firing the three commissioners, rather than following the usual process of making his own nominations when the opportunity arose. Abigail Stout, an attorney representing the Trump administration, argued that any restrictions on the president's removal power would violate his constitutional authority. After Trump announced the Democrats' firings, four Democratic U.S. senators sent a letter to the president urging him to reverse course. 'This move compromises the ability of the federal government to apply data-driven product safety rules to protect Americans nationwide, away from political influence,' they wrote. The Consumer Product Safety Commission was created in 1972. Its five members must maintain a partisan split, with no more than three representing the president's party. They serve staggered terms. That structure ensures that each president has 'the opportunity to influence, but not control,' the commission, attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote in court filings. They argued the recent terminations could jeopardize the commission's independence. Attorney Nick Sansone, who represents the three commissioners, praised the ruling Friday. 'Today's opinion reaffirms that the President is not above the law,' he said in a statement.

US appeals court refuses to overturn Biden approval of Alaska's Willow oil project
US appeals court refuses to overturn Biden approval of Alaska's Willow oil project

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

US appeals court refuses to overturn Biden approval of Alaska's Willow oil project

JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — A federal appeals court panel on Friday refused to overturn the approval of the massive Willow oil project on Alaska's petroleum-rich North Slope. The decision from a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals comes in a long-running dispute over the project, which was greenlit in March 2023 by then-President Joe Biden's administration and is being developed in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska by ConocoPhillips Alaska. The court's majority opinion found what it called a procedural but not substantive error by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management as part of the analysis in approving Willow. The majority determined that overturning the project's approval would be unwarranted and its consequences severe. During the cold-weather seasons, ConocoPhillips Alaska has worked to build infrastructure such as new gravel roads, bridges and pipelines at the project site. The ruling comes more than a year after the appeals court panel heard arguments in the case. Environmentalists and a grassroots Iñupiat group had appealed a lower-court ruling that upheld Willow's approval. Alaska's Republican governor and members of its congressional delegation and state Legislature have backed Willow. The project also has broad support among Alaska Native leaders on the North Slope and groups with ties to the region who see Willow as economically vital for their communities. J. Elizabeth Peace, a spokesperson with the U.S. Department of the Interior, said the agency doesn't comment on litigation. The Bureau of Land Management falls under the Interior. Messages seeking comment were left with ConocoPhillips Alaska and environmental groups. Becky Bohrer, The Associated Press Sign in to access your portfolio

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store