Unanimous decision reached in Maui fire settlement
HONOLULU (KHON2) — The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled today that insurance companies are barred from subrogation claims against the defendants in the $4 billion Global Settlement for victims of the Lahaina wildfire, and is limited in its subrogation claims against victims.Subrogation is the process in which insurance companies are allowed to get reimbursed for insurance claim payouts from an at-fault party.
Insurance companies say they've paid out close to $3 billion in claims from the Lahaina wildfire on August 8, 2023.
Hawaii Supreme Court hears arguments over Lahaina wildfire victims' global settlement
The $4.037 billion settlement, also known as the Global Settlement, was announced in August and on Thursday the Supreme Court questioned involved attorneys.
Top 10 ways pregnant people in Hawaiʻi can benefit from more birth choices
'We are not against insured or other fire victims that weren't even insured by somebody,' said Mark Grotefeld, attorney for insurance companies said after Thursdayʻs hearing. 'We simply wanna be able to pursue the recovery against those that started this fire. And we're entitled do that under the law.'
This ruling clears the way for individual payments to be paid out to fire victims.
'The Supreme Court simply followed clear Hawaii law that mainland subrogation insurers refused to acknowledge. This is the next step in getting relief to the plaintiffs who are the true victims of the Maui Fires,' Jesse Creed of Panish | Shea | Ravipudi LLP told KHON2.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
7 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Federal judge blocks Trump's firing of Consumer Product Safety Commission members
BALTIMORE — A federal judge has blocked the terminations of three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission after they were fired by President 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 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. Skene writes for the Associated Press.
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court justices get snippy as key decisions loom
As the Supreme Court bears down on the most contentious stretch of its annual session, the justices have been taking detours in opinions that reveal policy preferences and simmering grievances. When Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered excerpts of a recent decision on environmental regulation from the bench, he segued into a zealous policy-driven admonition about government 'delay upon delay' and the consequences for America's infrastructure. '(T)hat in turn means fewer and more expensive railroads, airports, wind turbines, transmission lines, dams, housing developments, highways, bridges, subways, stadiums, arenas, data centers, and the like,' Kavanaugh went on to write in his opinion. 'And that also means fewer jobs, as new projects become difficult to finance and build in a timely fashion.' Days later, when Justice Clarence Thomas joined a unanimous job-bias ruling, he penned a separate opinion that included an extraneous footnote decrying DEI. 'American employers have long been 'obsessed' with 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives and affirmative action plans,' he wrote, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, and referring to a brief from America First Legal Foundation, founded by Stephen Miller, now a top policy adviser to President Donald Trump. 'Initiatives of this kind have often led to overt discrimination against those perceived to be in the majority.' And last week, when Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the court's decision giving the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) access to Social Security Administration data, she stepped back and juxtaposed lower court judges' handling of Trump litigation with that of the conservative high-court majority. She variously described the lower court judges as 'hard at work'; engaged in 'thorough evaluations'; and issuing 'well-reasoned interim judgments.' The Supreme Court's conservative majority, on the other hand, 'dons its emergency-responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them.' Jackson has also made clear her disdain for the Trump agenda, referring in one case to its 'robotic rollout' of a policy cancelling teacher grants. Policy preferences have long lurked in the background of Supreme Court opinions, despite Chief Justice John Roberts' insistence that the justices, as 'umpires,' are concerned with the law, not societal consequences. What stands out these days is the willingness to overtly echo political talking points. Conflicts on the law, policy and all else among the justices are likely to deepen as they resolve their most difficult cases before a traditional end-of-June deadline. Still to be decided are disputes over state bans on medical care for transgender youths, parents' ability to remove their elementary-school children from LGBTQ-themed instruction, and the Trump administration's effort to end birthright citizenship. Cases arising from Trump's orders, appealed to the court on its emergency docket rather than the regular oral-argument calendar, will continue beyond this annual session. The justices often split along ideological and political lines. Conservatives Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett were named by Republican presidents; the three liberals, Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan were named by Democratic presidents. Such fault lines emerged in a late May case over Trump's firing of the heads of two independent agencies, the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board. The dispute filed on the court's emergency docket, among several flowing from dozens of Trump orders since he returned to the White House on January 20, drew widespread public interest because of the possible impact on the Federal Reserve and the country's economy. If Trump had the ability to remove leaders at the two independent labor-related boards, he could arguably fire Fed Chair Jerome Powell, threatening the longstanding independence of the Fed and destabilizing markets. In mid-April, Trump wrote on Truth Social, 'Powell's termination cannot come fast enough.' He blasted Powell for his measured steps on interest rates and for warnings about Trump's sweeping tariffs. On Thursday at the White House, Trump again complained about interest rates, called Powell a 'numbskull,' but said he was not going to fire him. Chief Justice Roberts shepherded the court's action in the case, as the majority issued an order that allowed Trump to remove, at least for the time being, the two board members who'd begun the dispute. The majority then specifically added language to exempt the Federal Reserve. The exception – superfluous to the legal issue at hand – appeared to respond to the political atmosphere and possible criticism that the court's action was endangering the Federal Reserve and US economy. Justice Kagan called out the majority's move as a reaction to the politics of the day. In a dissenting opinion joined by the two other liberals, Kagan condemned the majority for favoring 'the President over our precedent' regarding the removal of agency heads. (A 1935 case, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, limited the president's ability to fire such independent officers.) 'If the idea is to reassure the markets,' Kagan wrote, 'a simpler – and more judicial – approach would have been to deny the President's' appeal for immediate relief. 'Because one way of making new law on the emergency docket (the deprecation of Humphrey's) turns out to require yet another (the creation of a bespoke Federal Reserve exception).'
CNN
17 hours ago
- CNN
Analysis: Supreme Court justices get snippy as key decisions loom
As the Supreme Court bears down on the most contentious stretch of its annual session, the justices have been taking detours in opinions that reveal policy preferences and simmering grievances. When Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered excerpts of a recent decision on environmental regulation from the bench, he segued into a zealous policy-driven admonition about government 'delay upon delay' and the consequences for America's infrastructure. '(T)hat in turn means fewer and more expensive railroads, airports, wind turbines, transmission lines, dams, housing developments, highways, bridges, subways, stadiums, arenas, data centers, and the like,' Kavanaugh went on to write in his opinion. 'And that also means fewer jobs, as new projects become difficult to finance and build in a timely fashion.' Days later, when Justice Clarence Thomas joined a unanimous job-bias ruling, he penned a separate opinion that included an extraneous footnote decrying DEI. 'American employers have long been 'obsessed' with 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives and affirmative action plans,' he wrote, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, and referring to a brief from America First Legal Foundation, founded by Stephen Miller, now a top policy adviser to President Donald Trump. 'Initiatives of this kind have often led to overt discrimination against those perceived to be in the majority.' And last week, when Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the court's decision giving the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) access to Social Security Administration data, she stepped back and juxtaposed lower court judges' handling of Trump litigation with that of the conservative high-court majority. She variously described the lower court judges as 'hard at work'; engaged in 'thorough evaluations'; and issuing 'well-reasoned interim judgments.' The Supreme Court's conservative majority, on the other hand, 'dons its emergency-responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them.' Jackson has also made clear her disdain for the Trump agenda, referring in one case to its 'robotic rollout' of a policy cancelling teacher grants. Policy preferences have long lurked in the background of Supreme Court opinions, despite Chief Justice John Roberts' insistence that the justices, as 'umpires,' are concerned with the law, not societal consequences. What stands out these days is the willingness to overtly echo political talking points. Conflicts on the law, policy and all else among the justices are likely to deepen as they resolve their most difficult cases before a traditional end-of-June deadline. Still to be decided are disputes over state bans on medical care for transgender youths, parents' ability to remove their elementary-school children from LGBTQ-themed instruction, and the Trump administration's effort to end birthright citizenship. Cases arising from Trump's orders, appealed to the court on its emergency docket rather than the regular oral-argument calendar, will continue beyond this annual session. The justices often split along ideological and political lines. Conservatives Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett were named by Republican presidents; the three liberals, Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan were named by Democratic presidents. Such fault lines emerged in a late May case over Trump's firing of the heads of two independent agencies, the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board. The dispute filed on the court's emergency docket, among several flowing from dozens of Trump orders since he returned to the White House on January 20, drew widespread public interest because of the possible impact on the Federal Reserve and the country's economy. If Trump had the ability to remove leaders at the two independent labor-related boards, he could arguably fire Fed Chair Jerome Powell, threatening the longstanding independence of the Fed and destabilizing markets. In mid-April, Trump wrote on Truth Social, 'Powell's termination cannot come fast enough.' He blasted Powell for his measured steps on interest rates and for warnings about Trump's sweeping tariffs. On Thursday at the White House, Trump again complained about interest rates, called Powell a 'numbskull,' but said he was not going to fire him. Chief Justice Roberts shepherded the court's action in the case, as the majority issued an order that allowed Trump to remove, at least for the time being, the two board members who'd begun the dispute. The majority then specifically added language to exempt the Federal Reserve. The exception – superfluous to the legal issue at hand – appeared to respond to the political atmosphere and possible criticism that the court's action was endangering the Federal Reserve and US economy. Justice Kagan called out the majority's move as a reaction to the politics of the day. In a dissenting opinion joined by the two other liberals, Kagan condemned the majority for favoring 'the President over our precedent' regarding the removal of agency heads. (A 1935 case, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, limited the president's ability to fire such independent officers.) 'If the idea is to reassure the markets,' Kagan wrote, 'a simpler – and more judicial – approach would have been to deny the President's' appeal for immediate relief. 'Because one way of making new law on the emergency docket (the deprecation of Humphrey's) turns out to require yet another (the creation of a bespoke Federal Reserve exception).'
