Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog

After four years of litigation, key limitations in the California FAIR Plan fire policy were found to be unlawful in Jay Aliff v. California FAIR Plan Association. Originally designed to be California’s insurer of last resort, the California FAIR Plan has increasingly become the default plan for those in California who do not qualify for policies with private insurers.

The decision is significant, not only because of the vast number of individuals who have come to depend on FAIR Plan policies for coverage, but also because so many of these policies have been implicated by the devastating wildfires that engulfed the Los Angeles area in January of this year, especially by those whose properties did not burn but instead were rendered uninhabitable because of smoke, soot and ash. The decision speaks directly to the plight of those policyholders by clarifying that a property insurance policy cannot redefine core property insurance concepts like “direct physical loss” or “smoke damage” in ways that unlawfully restricts coverage.

In a victory for policyholders, and an honorable mention for Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, a federal judge in Virginia ruled that the dispersal of concrete dust that damaged inventory stored in an aircraft part distributor’s warehouse was a pollutant, as defined by the policy, but that it also constituted “smoke” as that term was defined in the dictionary, thereby implicating an exception to the policy’s pollution exclusion.  The Court then granted summary judgment for the policyholder, who had suffered a $3.2 million loss.[1]

Homeowners and businesses are beginning the painful recovery process following the devastating fires in California. Insurance money will be critical to that process. Read Lorie Masters' and Michael Levine's article in Law360 about how you can protect your right to access those critical funds.