California E&S Insurance

I don't know where you're getting this idea but this case is not doing what you're assuming. The fair plan policy is a named peril policy, and two of the name perils are fire and smoke. So when there's a massive Wildfire / Urban conflagration and your home is filled with heavy soot, ash, char, not to mention all kinds of toxic things like lead, asbestos, silica, lithium, dioxins, pcbs etc, would you think it's fair for the fair plan to say that your home has no damage? The fair plan was telling their customers smoke can be cleaned with ordinary household cleaning methods and that it was not actually damaged. Very normal 60 and $70,000 smoke cleanups that other carriers would routinely pay for, were denied by the fair plan. This ruling corrects that. It doesn't go overboard at all. See, California, like the majority of states, has what's called a "standard fire policy". That's in the state law, the statute. And all policies must give coverage equal to that bare bone sample policy in the statute. The judge basically ruled that fair plan's policy didn't meet the basic statutory minimum requirements. And he was right because they have a policy that officially covers smoke and yet they weren't paying for smoke. This really doesn't go overboard at all and just bring things up to a minimum level of fairness.

{
  "score": 0,
  "title": "",
  "subreddit": "altadena",
  "num_comments": 0,
  "scrape_method": "apify_targeted"
}