Some Timely Advice on Earthquake Damage Claims By John Millrany - July 13, 2001California State Treasurer Philip Angelides has some advice for victims and potential victims of earthquakes. On the one hand, he is appealing to homeowners to take out ‘quake insurance; on the other, he is urging anyone who was denied a settlement on a claim related to the disastrous 1994 Northridge Earthquake to reopen his or her claim.
With the government taking a lot of heat since state insurers began bailing out of the quake underwriting business following Northridge, reform legislation by the California Earthquake Authority was launched in 1995. Meanwhile, insurers turned down claims right and left. Then followed Senate Bill 1899, which extended until Dec. 31, 2001 the deadline to reopen Northridge-related claims.
A number of claim-denial cases are now chugging their way through the courts and at least one has been resolved, the Tara Hills case that resulted in a $7 million jury award to families of the 10-acre complex in Culver City.
Attorney Brian S. Kabateck, who helped write SB 1899, handled Tara Hills and is involved in many similar cases. adjustercom.com posed the following questions to Kabateck at his Century City law firm:
Q - What were the major factors in writing the legislation to extend the deadline?
A - There are thousands of policyholders who still have not received proper compensation for damages incurred during the 1994 Northridge Earthquake.
Earthquake insurance policies typically contain a one-year statue of limitation. Yet earthquake damage may go undetected or minimized, so when the true extent of the damage is found more than a year later, the statue of limitations has expired.
This was the case for thousands of property owners who complained to then Insurance Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush about their experience with various insurance companies.
The Department of Insurance acknowledged the problem by 1999 after conducting investigations that found that some insurance companies had misled property owners by telling them they had little or no damage, enticed those homeowners to rely on the evaluation of property damage and used the one-year statute of limitations to refuse payment even when the damage was initially detected by the insurance companies representative.
Officials at the Department of Insurance proposed billions of dollars in fines against the insurance companies. Quackenbush overruled these officials and allowed the insurance companies to settle for less than $12 million. This money, which was intended to help quake policyholders, was apparently used to enhance Quackenbush’s political career.
SB 1899 is specific to Northridge earthquake claims and provides property owners another opportunity to fight their insurance company because of the widespread abuse and the unique nature of earthquake damage.
Q- What are the most significant determinants in whether a policyholder reopens his or her claim for damages?
A - To be eligible for this time extension, policyholders must have contacted their insurance companies prior to Jan. 1, 2000. They simply needed to have called their insurance company and reported suspected damage to their property by Jan. 1, 2000. They can reopen their claim even if they previously missed their filing deadlines.
Q - How many claims is your firm now representing and when do you expect them to be resolved?
A - Our firm is currently handling over 75 individual claims and lawsuits. Each of these cases are unique and complex and there are a number of factors involved in resolution. It is almost impossible to give a projection.
Q – What do you say to critics, such as Dan Dunmoyer, president of the Personal Insurance Federation of California, who contend that SB 1899 is a ploy by lawyers to win class-action settlements ("It is nothing but a get-rich-quick scheme for lawyers to make hundreds of millions of dollars on the backs of satisfied customers")?
A - Time and experience tells us that these are not satisfied customers. The California Legislature found misconduct by the insurance companies. When there is no one else to turn to its always easier for insurance companies to turn to lawyers instead of accepting responsibility.
Q – What do you estimate is the amount of damages allegedly suffered by claimants?
A – We have no idea. |