State Farm policyholders ought to concentrate on its firm’s water injury claims processes, as famous in State Farm’s Water Protocol. After studying the information and allegations of a current water declare denial, I’d counsel in addition they must be involved with alleged specialists offering opinions about the reason for water losses.
These are a number of the allegations of information that the policyholder reported earlier than the professional was retained: 1
[H]eavy winds and rains handed by means of Plaintiff’s Property. The heavy winds brought on tiles to fall from his roof which allowed rainwater to penetrate into his residence, inflicting substantial injury all through the Property. (PAF 5) Following the February 21, 2023 windstorm, Plaintiff seen giant quantities of water all through his residence. Plaintiff promptly positioned towels right down to dry out all noticeable moist areas inside his residence. He additionally contacted Glenn Herrara at Skyline Builders to cowl the roof openings brought on by the February 21, 2023 windstorm (PAF 6). Regardless of Plaintiff’s efforts to mitigate and clear up the water damages, he noticed water damages all through his residence together with injury to the hardwood flooring, staining within the ceilings, injury to the French doorways in the lounge and fundamental hallway, and discoloration and water damages in and round his kitchen and cupboards, amongst different areas all through his Property. . . .
Previous to the February 2023 windstorm, there was no proof of any discoloration, cracking or another damages to the flooring, partitions, French doorways or kitchen areas. Plaintiff resided within the residence since 2005 and would have realized these damages in the event that they have been current earlier than the windstorm. The damages, which have been something however minor, arose on or after the February 21, 2023 windstorm. (PAF 8). Plaintiff has all the time saved his Property nicely maintained. He all the time promptly employed somebody to examine and restore any and all current damages. In 2017/2018, Plaintiff’s residence sustained damages and he pursued a proper declare together with his insurance coverage provider at the moment. Nevertheless, Plaintiff ultimately employed Mr. Herrera to restore these damages and paid Mr. Herrera out of pocket to repair the foundations of the house (re-supporting), repairing the cracks within the ceiling and partitions, and changing the flooring. (PAF 9). Following the repairs carried out by Mr. Herrera in 2018, Plaintiff by no means noticed another damages to his residence till the February 21, 2023 windstorm occasion.
…
Right here, the extreme windstorm allowed heavy rain water to penetrate into Plaintiff’s residence. (PAF 5). The February 2023 windstorm occasion brought on intensive, quick injury to the structural parts, together with the roof, flooring, partitions, doorways, framing and home windows. These damages arose after windstorm occasion, and weren’t pre-existing in nature. (PAF 8-10). This was initially confirmed by State Farm, who acknowledged that the damages to Plaintiff’s Property resulted from the wind/rain storm occasion on February 21, 2023. Extra particularly, State Farm’s personal adjuster inspected the Property and confirmed that the damages have been the results of the windstorm occasion, which invoked protection underneath the Coverage, prompting State Farm to difficulty a cost of $71,594.55, representing State Farm’s complete evaluation of the damages associated to the Water Injury Declare. (PAF 27). State Farm’s estimate and cost accounted for the water injury to the partitions, doorways, framing and home windows. (PAF 27-28). Thus, when cost was made to Plaintiff, protection was not in dispute. Nevertheless, given the numerous distinction between State Farm’s estimate of $71,594.55 in comparison with the estimate from Plaintiff’s contractor within the quantity of $760,340.21, State Farm “tried to reconcile” the estimates to find out if additional cost was owed and due. If reconciliation didn’t work, State Farm knowledgeable Plaintiff that it’ll rent a 3rd social gathering to supply an estimate of repairs. (PAF 26). In different phrases, State Farm led Plaintiff to consider that the one difficulty in dispute was the worth and scope of the coated water damages between the 2 estimates.
As an alternative of reconciling the 2 estimates to find out the true worth of the scope of repairs for Plaintiff’s broken residence, State Farm shortly switched gears and retained a ‘trigger’ professional. The one doubtless motive why State Farm would retain an professional to find out the reason for damages it had already paid for is as a result of State Farm realized that Plaintiff’s estimate was extra in keeping with the precise damages sustained within the Water Injury Declare and that it had underpaid and undervalued the damages to Plaintiff’s Los Angeles residence. State Farm’s retention of Engineering Methods, Inc. (‘ESI’) was deliberately set as much as create a protection dispute. To no shock, State Farm’s retained engineer got here up with the acquainted causation protection of ‘pre-existing damages’ to defeat cost of what was initially a coated declare.
What does the policyholder argue about State Farm’s water injury trigger and origin specialists?
ESI inspected the property on October 24, 2023, eight months after the windstorm occasion and over 4 months after Plaintiff reported the Water Injury Declare to State Farm. (DAF 4, PAF 31). Six months after inspecting Plaintiff’s property, ESI submitted its report back to State Farm, setting forth their alleged opinions and conclusions as to the trigger and origin of the Water Injury Declare. ESI primarily concluded that all the injury to the inside and exterior of the house was pre-existing and resulted from age, deterioration, deficiencies within the design and building of the house, lack of routine upkeep and repairs, amongst different issues.
All of ESI’s conclusions are primarily based on defective and misguided assumptions and/or are contradicted by substantial proof on this case. Specifically, whereas ESI concludes that the water injury noticed was the results of ‘age-related deterioration’ over a protracted time frame, conveniently omitted from ESI’s report is that it inspected the house eight months after the storm. In different phrases, whereas ESI assumes that the damages pre-dated the loss, ESI carried out its investigation 8 months after the water injury loss occurred and didn’t seek the advice of with witnesses with private information of the pre-loss situation of the inside parts of the house, most importantly, Plaintiff himself. Had ESI communicated with Plaintiff himself, ESI would have realized that the alleged ‘preexisting’ damages and deterioration it noticed didn’t exist previous to the Water Injury Declare and as an alternative, Plaintiff noticed all of those water damages after the February 2023 windstorm occasion. All different damages had been well timed repaired.
ESI doesn’t determine case-specific proof of gradual results of wear and tear and tear and earth motion to the Property over time. ESI didn’t account for the truth that the windstorm occasion occurred eight months previous to the time the water intrusions occurred and thus, can’t say when the injury occurred and didn’t carry out any analysis of how lengthy it could take for such alleged ‘pre-existing’ situations to seem. Equally, there is no such thing as a proof that ESI had or requested for pre-loss images of the inside of the house. ESI didn’t communicate with Plaintiff earlier than concluding that the damages have been brought on by lack of routine upkeep and repairs. ESI’s conclusions are additionally refuted by State Farm’s declare file which acknowledges proof of prior repairs to the house. (PAF 52). ESI’s conclusions are additionally refuted by State Farm’s declare adjusters who decided that the reason for the damages was the results of the windstorm occasion and the opposite adjuster, Mr. Thomas Jones, who agreed with Plaintiff’s flooring professional that the strong oak wooden flooring all through the house wanted to get replaced for a uniform look.
ESI recognized 4 attainable causes of the damages however failed to clarify how any of them brought on the injury or was the predominate reason for damages to the house. ESI has no thought how a lot water entered the house on February 21, 2023 and if these water intrusions brought on the damages noticed, but, summarily concluded that all the damages have been pre-existing and attributable to all the things however the windstorm occasion.
On this case, the courtroom declined to grant State Farm’s movement for abstract judgment, 2 indicating that the policyholder must be allowed to show the information and allegations in regards to the unsuitable, biased, and final result oriented claims investigation and that discovery ought to proceed. So, there could also be extra to report about this case sooner or later. For all we all know, the ESI specialists and State Farm could also be completely proper.
However, many people are skeptical of specialists, and I famous and offered an instance 16 years in the past in Insurance coverage Firm Consultants Are Typically Biased And Consequence Oriented. The sentiment could finest be described in my publish, The Plague of Flawed and Insurer Worded Engineering Stories by Insurance coverage Firm Retained Engineers:
Immediately’s weblog just isn’t going to endear me to HAAG, Rimkus, JS Held, and different often retained forensic engineers working for insurance coverage corporations. These engineering and consulting corporations are large enterprise. A lot in order that Sedgwick, a big impartial adjusting agency, has acquired numerous these engineering corporations. I can think about a lot of you questioning how an adjusting agency representing the insurance coverage firm’s curiosity can get hold of an impartial and sincere opinion underneath such circumstances.
Many skeptical public adjusters, contractors, and critics inform me that they don’t have to attend to know what the engineering report goes to say if a sure engineer has been retained. Not solely are the scientific findings antagonistic to the policyholder, however the wording of the report additionally inextricably dovetails with the insurer’s exclusionary or limiting coverage language. It’s a lot simpler to show that an engineering report’s conclusion is unsuitable than it’s to show that the errors and unsuitable conclusions have been the results of bias or an outcome-oriented mind-set.
…
I lately attended the Georgia Affiliation of Public Insurance coverage Adjusters assembly, the place an professional in fireplace injury and remediation gave a unprecedented admission in regards to the forms of monetary stress positioned upon forensic specialists relating to their reviews. He defined how his testing resulted in conclusions that infuriated the desk adjuster, who must pay extra on the declare. Quite than ship his report back to the policyholder, it was buried. The desk adjuster employed one other professional who carried out totally different testing to reach at an misguided conclusion. Ultimately, the reality was uncovered. His level was that this was not an remoted occasion and that many adjusters, sadly, will not be in search of the reality however a report which ends up in much less paid on a declare.
One motive I wrote Supporting the American Policyholder Affiliation With Time and Cash Is an Obligation If You Are a True Policyholder Advocate, is due to the APA’s warnings about final result oriented reviews. The engineering reviews typically appear to dovetail with exclusionary language from the coverage. Policyholders have motive to be skeptical.
Once more, the findings of this energetic case can be sorted out later. The teachings are that some insurers have claims processes designed to not pay sure claims and that skepticism is deserved when studying the insurance coverage firm’s professional trigger and origin report.
Thought For The Day
“Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!”
—Leonardo da Vinci
1 Oakenfold v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., No. 2:24-cv-07455, [Doc. 32], 2024 WL 5337691 (C.D. Cal.).
2 Oakenfold v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., No. 2:24-cv-07455, 2025 WL 574629 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2025).