…who you believed before the fire.

When Weed’s homeowners bought their insurance policies, they trusted and believed the insurance agents and brokers. Then wildfires changed everything.

Burned home in Weed, California; photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Although homeowners buy insurance for the total loss of the structure, a simple fact remains that getting dollars from an insurer does little to replace the memories of holidays around the dinner table, of grandkids playing in the yard, and the photo albums from decades past. Still, we must move forward and what remains to be done is to submit the claim to the insurer; receive the check; and start the process of rebuilding. But this is when the real nightmare begins — realizing that your insurer intentionally underinsured your home so that it could sell more policies than the competition.

Underinsurance: A persistent problem

After the 1991 Oakland Hills fire and the 2003 Southern California wildfires, legislators discovered through public hearings an additional aspect of the danger wildfires pose to homeowners: underinsurance. Legislation was enacted to remedy this situation. Nonetheless, when large wildfires struck Southern California in 2007 and 2008, state officials realized again the underinsurance problem persisted.

Data from the 2007 wildfires showed that 74% of the homeowners were underinsured by an average of $240,000. To address these concerns, the Insurance Commissioner proposed new regulations and amendments to existing regulations, and in 2010 strong and strict guidelines were put into place.

photo by CNN

Fighting the good fight for homeowners

My clients are fighting these insurers and I am disgusted with what we are uncovering: Attorneys playing slick; adjusters deceiving their insureds; agents and brokers who over-promised and under-delivered. Like the rest of us, when buying insurance to cover their homes, each owner was asked questions by the agents/brokers, like the year the home was purchased, square footage, price, foundation, etc.; each owner was told the insurer would issue a policy; and each was told that when the premium was paid, the coverage would begin. In each case, the insurer calculated the policy limits and the annual premium. The homeowners believed their insurers, paid their premiums, and found comfort knowing that their homes were protected.

Now, after the 2014 fire, homeowners are being told by the very same insurers who calculated the limits that the coverage limits are grossly inadequate. When these homeowners bought their policies, they trusted and believed the insurance agents and brokers; they trusted and believed the “Good Hands People” of Allstate; the “Like a Good Neighbor” agents of State Farm; the brokers and agents for the insurer whose memorable jingle is, “Nationwide is on Your Side.” But where’s Peyton Manning now? Where is “We are Farmers, dum da dum-dum, da dum dum”? And where are these supposed “Good Hands” people?
 

“You should not have believed us.”

When the 2014 homeowners complained to their insurers, the insurance companies responded with: Well, I guess you should not have believed us when you bought that policy.

It’s time we come together to rebuild these towns and tell these insurers that 1991, 2003, 2007, 2008, 2010, and 2014 are far too many warnings. The question I ask now: Why should the insurers get so many warnings when the insured, who misses one single premium payment, gets a nasty letter that coverage is being canceled?

photo by CTsabre14

Our legal system is the envy of the free world. Sure it has its flaws, but for the most part the ideals of the founding fathers remain true. However, California’s courts are severely congested and delays are quite common.

In this case, the Defendant refused to admit fault and refused to take responsibility for its actions. In turn, the Plaintiff refused to cave in, and instead stood firm on his principles. The courthouse is where this battle will end, and both parties will have to wait 5 years for a courtroom to become available.

Darryl (not his real name) was injured while delivering pallets and product to a warehouse. Most of the events leading up to the injury are captured on the warehouse surveillance video with one exception — namely, Darryl is on the back side of the pallets and therefore not visible in the video. The video showed Darryl walking around the pallet checking the delivered items against the delivery manifest. The video showed a warehouse employee backing up a truck without looking and hitting the pallet, and the video showed the pallet moving 3 to 4 feet from the impact. As a matter of deduction, anyone on the back side of the pallet, standing within 3 to 4 feet, would be struck by the pallet. Darryl was struck and injured.

Darryl notified the warehouse of the incident. The warehouse should take care of Darryl. But after a warehouse supervisor saw the video, he saw an opportunity to cover his own bottom and to point the finger at the victim. Realizing that Darryl is not shown in the video, the supervisor then stated that he was a direct eye witness standing a few feet from Darryl, and that Darryl was four or more feet away from the pallet such that the pallet very lightly touched Darryl. Darryl could not believe his ears as this supervisor, accusing Darryl of fraud, was in fact lying about the incident. There were no eye witnesses. And thus the battle began.

Darryl contacted our law firm to assist with this claim. Settlement was attempted, but the warehouse refused. A lawsuit was filed but the warehouse denied all responsibility. Depositions were taken and the supervisor testified that Darryl was barely tapped by the pallet and that it is an insult for Darryl to bring this claim. In short, the supervisor testified that Darryl is a lowly liar.

During trial the warehouse supervisor again testified about eye-witnessing Darryl being ever so lightly tapped. Again, insinuating that Darryl is fabricating this story. And although the supervisor had reviewed the video of the incident, what the supervisor should have reviewed was the entire video. My office and Darryl spent hours combing through the video, frame by frame, and although it was a grainy picture and of low resolution, we were able to conclude that the supervisor was NOT standing next to Darryl and in fact had no view of Darryl.

At trial, the supervisor was impeached with his own video and the court was less than happy with the supervisor’s “story.” The court found in favor of Darryl and justice was done, although it took five years.

People quip that “you can sue for anything in this country,” but what is often forgotten is the quip that “you can lie and deny about anything in this country.” In the end, when the matter is laid bare before the court the hope is that justice will be served and that the finger-pointing, fault-denying, blame-everyone-else supervisors will be held accountable.

Good job, Darryl, for sticking to your principles!

Landlord owns the building. Tenant runs a restaurant. The lease has more than 10 years left.

Property values in this part of town are starting to skyrocket. Landlord wants to get rid of the Tenant so that Landlord can sell the building to a high-rise condo developer. Tenant wants to stay, as the rising real estate prices are bringing a wealthier set of customers to the restaurant. These competing interests are about to collide, and the courthouse is about to be center stage.

An earthquake destroys the restaurant, but fortunately it’s insured. Landlord receives the insurance check for the repairs, but then drags his feet in having a contractor do the repairs, hoping that the delay will ruin the restaurant and perhaps cause the Tenant to miss his monthly payments and therefore breach the lease.

The delay in construction does, in fact, cause the Tenant to fall behind in the monthly lease payments. Landlord sues Tenant for falling behind with the rent – the Landlord’s scheme is working and soon this restaurant Tenant will be gone and the building can be sold to the high-rise condo developer. But this Tenant is not to be toyed with. Tenant decides to retain an attorney.

After a protracted legal battle, Landlord pays well over a half million dollars to “resolve matters” with Tenant.

Waiting for your trial date? Waiting years for your trial date? California’s courts are overburden with criminal matters. Every meth lab, every robbery, and every ID theft is a criminal matter. The “right to a speedy trial” applies to criminal matters, but in contrast the “right to a trial” applies to civil trials – the word “speedy” is missing. This means criminal matters get priority when going to trial while civil matters get postponed – too many criminals and not enough courtrooms.

1. Jasmine (not her real name) was scheduled for trial. The criminal matters took precedence and Jasmine was told to come back in a few months.

2. A few months later… Jasmine appeared for trial, but again the criminal matters took precedence and Jasmine was told to come back in a few months.

3. A few months later… Jasmine appeared for trial, but again the criminal matters took precedence and Jasmine was told to come back in a few months.

4. A few months later… Jasmine appeared for trial, but again the criminal matters took precedence and Jasmine was told to come back in a few months.

5. A few months later… Jasmine appeared for trial, but again the criminal matters took precedence and Jasmine was told to come back in a few months.

6. Finally, Jasmine appeared for trial and this time a courtroom was available. Trial started in October 2015 for a claim arising in March 2012.

The trial ended well for Jasmine and she was glad that I stuck with her for those 6 times in court. But not every attorney will stick it out. Not every attorney will show up to court 6 times, or spend the money 6 times or prepare for trial…

When you decide to hire an attorney, make sure that he or she will be there for you 3-1/2 years later and that he or she will be there for you all 6 times.

photo by Michael Burns

This “…new agent; …please resubmit” process was repeated until Mary had enough. She contacted me and we met to discuss her case. I explained that this process of repeatedly transferring the file to another agent and losing Mary’s requests is common. It’s how they play the game. Mary then told me her story and we devised a course of action.

The insurer refused to negotiate for a fair settlement, instead taking the position that Mary should get nothing. The lawsuit was filed, depositions were taken, documents were gathered, and then we waited for an available courtroom for the trial. On the eve of trial the insurer offered $500, which Mary promptly rejected (expletives withheld).

Trial began, and the insurer had no shame in using all of their dirty tricks. They accused Mary of everything: That she wasn’t injured, that her medical care was not proper, that her time missed from work was suspicious, and finally they accused Mary of causing this rear-end accident by arguing that although she was stopped at an intersection she must have hit the other car. The jury was not impressed.

After deliberating over a couple days, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Mary for an amount which included, to the penny, each item of damage incurred by Mary – approximately $73,000.

Editorial Moment: Mary was an awesome client. She knew that she was right, that the insurer’s offer of $500 was an insult, and that a jury would do the right thing. Mary believed in the right to a jury trial – guaranteed through the 7th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. This right to a jury comes under attack every year by tort reformers, with few of these “reformers” ever admitting that they’re funded by the very same type of insurance companies which tried to abuse Mary. Is Mary supposed to take the $500 – take it or leave it? Does Mary have any options?

What these reformers never offer is an alternative — without a jury, what is your alternative? I invite these wannabe reformers to tell me what they have to offer that’s better than Thomas Jefferson’s 7th Amendment.

photo by Pontus Edenberg

Food poisoning is rarely fatal if caught in time, and even if not diagnosed the results are usually flu-like symptoms, nausea, dizziness, exhaustion, and fever. Unfortunately food poisoning is most likely fatal for the very young and the elderly. Worse, young children, toddlers, and babies can suffer irreparable damage to their digestive systems, often requiring lifetime medical care.

June’s family asked for my help. What happened next was an eye-opening lesson in food processing that would make Upton Sinclair sick despite the passage of 100+ years of “change” since he authored The Jungle. However, I also developed respect for the hard-working people at the Center for Disease Control. The scientists and investigators at the CDC can track your six-inch sandwich to the farmer who picked your lettuce and to the factory that ground the meat. Unfortunately though, the CDC is an after-the-fact organization that can catch the culprit but cannot prevent the crime. Much like any policing agency, it apprehends but does not prevent.

I worked hard for June’s family, collaborated with a team of experts, battled against the company which distributed the tainted food, and eventually reached a settlement. The company cannot be named nor can the settlement terms be disclosed as the company required that the settlement be confidential. The settlement will allow June’s children to provide for June’s grandchildren, but the settlement won’t bring back June.

A sad failing to our legal system is that it’s often an after-the-fact organization that changes companies one at a time — if that company gets caught and if it decides that future misconduct is not worth the risk of getting caught a second time. Ford’s design of the Pinto placed the gas tank in an unsafe location at the rear of the car. People died and Ford denied. After a then-record verdict, Ford changed. Today we hear about Toyota’s unexpected acceleration issues which the company knew about but delayed to disclose, and GM’s faulty ignition affecting the deployment of airbags and how GM knew about this hazard for far too long. Companies know when their product is defective but some play that financial game of, “What will cost more — the recall or the potential verdicts?”

Thomas Jefferson insisted upon the 7th amendment right to jury trial so the smallest of persons can speak and be heard by the largest of organizations. But the sad reality is that many companies will run that risk, like with Toyota, Ford, and June’s case. Mr. Sinclair wrote of contaminated food in 1906, yet here I am writing about it again in 2014.