After a wildfire declare, many policyholders breathe a sigh of aid after they obtain an advance or “undisputed” cost from their insurance coverage firm. However I typically get calls from public adjusters or owners who’re shocked when that very same insurer later denies half—or all—of the declare, particularly if they’re coping with California FAIR Plan. Nonetheless, in lots of circumstances, I’m listening to that carriers are making their funds, generally even with out a “reservation of rights,” and later denying protection for losses.
Two latest selections—one printed, one unpublished—clarify that early funds don’t lock the insurer into protection and don’t forestall them from asserting protection defenses later if coverage circumstances weren’t met.
A Service’s Funds on a Declare Does Warranty Protection – Gharibian v. Wawanesa Common Insurance coverage Firm
In Ghrabiabian v. Wawanesa Common Insurance coverage Firm, the California Court docket of Attraction addressed a smoke injury declare arising from the 2019 Saddle Ridge hearth. 1 The insurer, Wawanesa, issued roughly $20,000 in early funds to the house owner. Nonetheless, the owners determined to not rent knowledgeable cleansing firm and as a substitute asserted that the prices to restore the house have been larger.
The insured sued for breach of contract and unhealthy religion, arguing that Wawanesa had accepted protection by making funds associated to wildfire injury, amongst different causes. Nonetheless, on abstract judgment, the trial courtroom dominated that there was no protection for the declare. Additional, its reasoning was primarily based on case regulation holding that carriers typically alter claims for causes unrelated to their deserves. For that purpose, the courtroom dominated that funds shouldn’t be thought-about admissions of legal responsibility or the substantive acceptance of obligations underneath the coverage. The appellate courtroom affirmed the trial courtroom ruling.
Advances Do Not Imply Protection – Razuki v. AmGUARD
In an unpublished resolution, Razuki v. AmGUARD Insurance coverage Firm, the Ninth Circuit Court docket of Appeals reached the same conclusion. 2 After a fireplace loss, AmGUARD issued a $50,000 advance with out a reservation of rights concerning protecting safeguards on the coverage that required the constructing to have a fireplace sprinkler system. It later denied the declare primarily based on alleged coverage violations.
The insured argued the advance amounted to a waiver and estoppel, however each the trial and appellate courts disagreed. It emphasised that the advance was made through the investigation and underneath a transparent reservation of rights. Because of this, AmGUARD retained the flexibility to later deny the declare with out creating legal responsibility for unhealthy religion.
What This Means for Policyholders and Adjusters
Simply because an insurer cuts a test doesn’t imply the declare is accepted. Early funds typically replicate solely mitigation efforts or partial losses. Until the insurer points a transparent and unqualified acceptance of protection, these funds don’t assure something going ahead.
This additionally serves as a reminder: policyholders should nonetheless observe the principles. That features cooperating with inspections, producing requested paperwork, mitigating damages, and being truthful. If a misrepresentation or coverage breach surfaces later, the insurer can—and sometimes will—use that to disclaim or restrict the declare, even after cost.
Lastly, a denial after an advance isn’t robotically unhealthy religion. California courts have constantly allowed insurers to reevaluate claims as extra data turns into accessible, so long as their actions are cheap and grounded within the coverage.
This problem was echoed only recently by Chip Merlin, the place, in his latest submit, Protecting Safeguard Endorsements Are Harmful to Protection, he mentioned that post-loss funds “don’t equate to a waiver of [the insurer’s] proper to disclaim claims if protection by no means existed underneath the coverage.” 3
Backside line: That early test may appear like a inexperienced mild—however it might simply be a placeholder. If you happen to’re uncertain the place your declare actually stands, ask for clarification, maintain documenting, and, if wanted, speak to somebody who is aware of easy methods to maintain insurers accountable.
1 Gharibian v. Wawanesa Gen. Ins. Co., 108 Cal.App.fifth 730 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025) (printed).
2 Razuki v. AmGUARD Ins. Co., No. 24-2352 (ninth Cir. June 6, 2025) (unpublished).
3 Chip Merlin, Protecting Safeguard Endorsements Are Harmful to Protection, Property Insurance coverage Protection Legislation Weblog (June 11, 2025).