Preview
PETER SCHWARTZ (SBN: 109859)
Bay ONES QBN: 112307)
djones m.com
CHRISTOPHER R. WAGNER (SBN: 162092)
Cwagnel m.com
STEVEN R. INOUYE (SBN: 245024)
sinouyet irsm.com
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
633 West Fifth Street, 52" Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 576-5019
Facsimile: (213) 680-4470
Attorneys for Defendant,
FIRE INSURANCE EX CHANGE
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF SONOMA - HALL OF JUSTICE
ag 12 GARY KOOP, CASE NO. SCV-266944
a
[Assigned for All Purposes
to Hon. OscarA.
13 Plaintiff, Pardo, Dept. 19]
14 vs. SECOND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL
NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF FIRE
15 FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, dba INSURANCE EXCHANGE’S
FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP; OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S
16 BRIAN HUNSAKER, MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OR, ALTERNATIVELY,
17 Defendants SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
18 [Filed concurrently with Opposition
Memorandum of Points of Authority;
19 Opposition Separate Statement of Material
Facts]
20
Date: June 28, 2023
21 Time: 3:00 p.m.
Dept.: 19
22
Complaint filed: August 24, 2020
23 Trial Date: November 8, 2023
24
25
26 Pursuant to Califomia Evidence Code sections 452 and/or 453, defendant Fire Insurance
27 Exchange (“Fire”) hereby requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following documents
28 filed in this action:
“1
SECOND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF FIRE INSURANCE
EXCHANGE’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(1) Exhibit B The Declaration of Jason Jones submitted in support of Fire’s
Motion for Summary Judgment filed on September 30, 2021, including the following exhibits
attached thereto:
e Exhibit 11 — First Notice of Loss dated October 11, 2017
e Exhibit 15 — Request for Authority
e Exhibit 31 — Plaintiff’s letter to Fire dated June 18, 2019 requesting to reform the
policy
Exhibit 32 — Fire’s letter to Plaintiff dated June 21, 2019 providing Extended
Replacement Cost payments to Plaintiff
10 Exhibit 33 - Plaintiff's letter to Fire dated September 19, 2019 requesting to
11 reform the policy
ag 12 Exhibit 34 - Fire’s letter to Plaintiff dated September 25, 2019 declining
a 13 Plaintiffs reformation request
14 Exhibit 40 - Plaintiffs counsel letter to Fire dated July 17, 2020 requesting
15 reconsideration of the reformation request
us 16 Exhibit41 - Fire’s letter to Plaintiffs counsel dated July 27, 2020 declining
17 Plaintiffs second reformation request
18
19 (2) Exhibit C The Declaration of Stacy Tucker submitted in support of Plaintiff's
20 instant Motion for Summary Judgment, including the following exhibits attached thereto:
21 e Exhibit 3 - Liz Evans’ email to Plaintiff dated September 1, 2015 which included
22 her 360V alue reconstruction cost estimate.
23 Exhibit 19 — Log Notes
24 Exhibit 24 — Deposition of Brian Hunsaker
25 Exhibit 25 — Deposition of Justin Price
26 Exhibit 26 — Deposition of Brianne Hall
27 e Exhibit 27 — Deposition of Liz Evans
28 e Exhibit 29 — Request for Authority
-2-
SECOND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF FIRE INSURANCE
EXCHANGE’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Exhibit 32 — Log Notes
Exhibit 43 Deposition of Jared Schmitz
Exhibit 44 — 2013 Insurance Policy
Exhibit 45 — 2013 360V alue Estimate
Exhibit 46 — 2013 Declarations Page and Changes
Exhibit 47 — 2014 Insurance Policy
Exhibit 48 — 2014 Policy Change
Exhibit 49 — 2015 Renewal Offer
Exhibit 50 — 2006 to 2008 Insurance Policies
10 (4) Complaint filed by Plaintiff on August 24, 2020 in this action;
11 (5) First Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on or about January 6, 2021 in this
ag 12 action; and
a 13 (6) Answer to the First Amended Complaint filed by Fire on February 9, 2021 in this
14 action.
15
16 Dated: June 9, 2023 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
17
18
By: Sk hn
Peter Schwartz
David L. Jones
19 Christopher R. Wagner
Steven R. Inouye
20 Attomeys for Defendant
FIRE INSURANCE EX CHANGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“3
SECOND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF FIRE INSURANCE
EXCHANGE’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
EXHIBITB
EXHIBITB
PETER SCHWARTZ (SBN: 109859) ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Courtof California
BAD L TONES BN: 112307) County of Sonoma
10/4/2021 12:34 PM
HIRISTOPHER R. WAGNER (SBN: 162092) Arlene D. J unior, Clerk of the Court
By: J ennifer Ellis, Deputy Clerk
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANT, LLP
633 West Fifth Street, 52™ floor
Los les, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 576-5019
Facsimile: (213) 680-4470
Attol for Defendant
FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA.
10 COUNTY OF SONOMA
11 GARY KOOP, CASE NO. SCV-266944
[Assigned to the Hon. Gary Nadler, Dept.
12 Plaintiff, 19]
a 13 vs. DECLARATION OF JASONJONES
INSUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
14 FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, dba SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR,
FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP; BRIAN ALTERNATIVELY, SUMMARY
15 HUNSAKER, ADJUDICATION
by 16 Defendants. [Filed concurrently with Notice of
Motion and Motion for S
£8 17 J Separate Statement of
Undisputed Facts, Request for Judicial
18 Notice, Evidence in Support of Motion,
and Declaration Christopher R. Wagner]
19
Date, 1-26-22
20 Time: 3:00pm
Dept. #19
21
Complaint filed: August 24, 2020
Trial: April 8, 2022
24
25
26
27
“1
DECLARATION OF JASONJONES RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Fire’s denial of Mr. Koop’s request for reformation of the Policy. This document is maintained
by Fire in the regular course of its business in the claim files pertaining to the Loss.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on this a day of September
YoRat ra
a
2021, at, >
i isi ps
10
11
oS 12
aS
B3c
BE
BYR 13
ge
14
Bag
Bs 15
a3 16
e234
sm
Ee 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
~10-
DECLARATION OF JASON JONES RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
_ _ _ ee
EXHIBIT 11
EXHIBIT 11
10/11/2017
Brian Hunsaker: 96-05-325:
Subject: A new claim has been reported
Insured: Gary Koop
Claim Unit Number: 3009622336 -1-1
Policy Number: 0926772987
Loss Date: 10/10/2017
Insured Contact information is as follows:
Primary: (707) 322-6549
Cell: (707) 322-6549
Loss Description:
HJ1 Fire & Removal
Claim Assignments:
1)
Unit type: Building
Customer/Claimant GARY KOOP
CR Name: PROPERTY QUEUE
CR Phone: (800) 435-7764
CR Fax:
Office: NATIONAL CATASTROPHE COE
Office Phone: (800) 435-7764
2)
Unit type: Contents
Customer/Claimant GARY KOOP
CR Name: PROPERTY QUEUE
CR Phone: (800) 435-7764
CR Fax:
Office: NATIONAL CATASTROPHE COE
Office Phone: (800) 435-7764
Should you have any questions, please contact the appropriate assigned Claim
Representative or refer to https://eagent.farmersinsurance.com/ for additional claim
details on the Agency Dashboard.You may also want to consider following up with your
customer with an FFR in the near future.
According to J.D. Power and Associates, an agent can significantly improve their
customer's claim experience and chances of retention by contacting the customer after
the claim is reported and again, about a week later. Simply showing that you care
enough to make sure their claim is going well is all you need to do to help deliver an
FIRE - CLAIMS 0317
exceptional customer experience and improve the chances of retaining the customer at
renewal. This proactive follow-up has been identified as a "best practice" by J.D.
Power and Associates for insurance companies that market & service their products
through agent distribution channels.
FIRE - CLAIMS 0318
EXHIBIT 15
EXHIBIT 15
fo"
FARMERS
INSURANCE
MEMO
REQUEST FOR AUTHORITY
To: Committee for Authority — Large
Property
Date of Initial Report: 11/13/17
Date of 1‘ Supplemental
Report:
Date of 2"! Supplemental
Report:
Claim Number: 3009622336-1
Insured name: Gary Koop
DOL: 10/9/17
General A djuster: Colin Nolan
Dept.: East Zone Large Property
DETAILS OF RISK:
This is a 2,967 square foot, 5 bedroom, and 3.5 bathroom home located in the Foothills area of Santa Rosa,
California. Many of the features of the home were of a premium grade quality. Home was built on a hillside and
has limited access from a one lane private road.
An estimate was completed and our estimate exceeds policy limits on an ACV basis and ERC on an RCV basis.
Policy limits will be paid now and ERC when incurred
GENERAL FACTS OF LOSS:
This is a fire loss to our customer’s home located in Santa Rosa area of Northem California. The fire is due to
the wildfire in the area and is part of CAT HJ1.
DAMAGES:
Structure: General A djuster completed estimate using Total Valuation tool obtaining details of the property
from the customer. The home is a total loss and there is little recognizable. The foundation was also damaged
by heat from the fire and will need to be replaced.
e Debris Removal- Debris removal was calculated using X actimate. Due to the large amount of concrete
being removed, additional low boy dumpsters were included in the estimate. Additional care is required
as the debris is on a hillside with homes below. The estimate has exceeded Debris Removal limits. The
same is true for separate structures. Therefore, requesting limits for both lines of coverage.
TSPL- The home was landscaped with several different fruit and flowering/shade trees. The home is
built on a large lot with many mature trees with values exceeding $750. There was also a large amount
FIRE - CLAIMS 0954
of shrubs, ground covers, etc, planted around the property. The TSPL coverage has been exceeded.
Requesting limits.
Code- The home was built in 1976. Requesting full amount of code coverage at this time for potential items
required by the city/county. BOL concerns include architecture and fire prevention plan fees as well as codes
Potential items for mandated upgrades as required by new construction ordinances. I have included request for
BOL coverage in anticipation of the future need
Separate Structure: The property contained several separate structures multi-level deck, fort, fences on and
splitting the property, boat shelter, chicken coop, patios, walkways, stairways, wood shed, and a detached
garage that is fully finished. All sustained damage from the fire and will be required to be replaced. I stopped
estimating separate structures once the policy limit was exceeded at acv, policy limits are being requested.
Contents:
The home was well furnished. The Koop’s live at the home with their 2 children and 2 parents. Mr. Koop has
contents in the separate structures, garage, and one of the rooms in the home is a game room with pool tables,
arcade games, ping pong table, foosball at the loss location and all fumnishings and personal items in his
possession at the home. The insureds shopped at high end stores for clothing, appliances, and furniture. It is
likely that the personal property inventory will reach $486,750. All items are a total loss. Requesting authority
for policy limits at this time.
ALE:
SVE for the home is $5789. 24 months ALE at that rate is $138,936. Requesting $150,000 at this time to
account for any interim ALE costs.
FINANCIAL AUTHORITY REQUESTED
COVERAGE DESCRIPTION // LIMITS
Line of Coverage Policy Limits
Coverage A- Bldg $649,000.00) $649,000.00] $0.00] $0.00]
ERC - 25% $162,250.00) $162,250.00| $0.00] $0.00]
Debris Removal - 5% $32,450.00} $32,450.00| $0.00] $0.00]
Landscaping - 5% $32,450.00} $32,450.00| $0.00] $0.00]
Code Upgrade - 10% * $64,900.00} $64,900.00 $0.00] $0.00]
Coverage B - Sep. Struct. $64,900.00} $64,900.00 $0.00] $0.00]
Debris Removal - 5% $3,245.00] $3,245.00] $0.00] $0.00]
Code Upgrade - 10% * $6,490.00} $6,490.00] $0.00] $0.00]
Sum - Coverage A & B
Coverage C - Contents $486,750.00) $486,750.00| $146,025.00| $146,025.00]
Debris Removal - 5% $24,337.50} $0.00] $0.00] $0.00]
Sum - Cov C & Contents Debris Removal
Coverage D - ALE/Rents $259,600.00] $150,000.00] $0.00] $0.00]
Totals
FIRE - CLAIMS 0955
EXHIBIT 31
EXHIBIT 31
From: Gary Koop [mailto:madmoto250@ att.net]
Sent: Tuesday, J une 18, 2019 10:53 AM
To: J ason J ones ; gary koop
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Gary Koop Insurance Claim #3009622336-1-1
Gary Koop
P.O. Box 2263
Healdsburg, CA 95448
June 17, 2019
Jason J ones
P.O. Box 268994
Oklahoma City, OK 73126-8994
RE: Gary Koop Insurance Claim #3009622336-1-1
To whom it may concern:
Today, | received the proposed estimate from the project managerto rebuild my 2650 Amber Lane
property lost in the 2017 Tubbs Fire. | have been in discussion with contractors and subs as |
move forward on rebuilding my residence. The cost to rebuild far exceeds the insurance money
available. In addition, the required code upgrades are astronomical. After looking through the
policy and the initial explanation of payment
that Colin Nolan, General Claims Adjuster, sentto me
on November 23, 2017, | find | am concerned that | have not been properly advised and covered
for years.
The claims adjuster provided the copy of his estimate of the damage to my property and the cost
to repair it. The details and the figures seem incredibly low. There is a meaningful difference
between the amount offered and the amount | need to repair and replace my lost property. After
seeing the estimate for the rebuild and the listof upgrades required by law, | am dismayed at the
enormous gap between the limits of the policy and the true cost to replace the home.
| recognize that | was also very underinsured for my personal property possessions but take
responsibility for not providing enough detail to ensure | was advised properly on what it would
take to replace my belongings. However, when it comes to rebuilding a home after a total loss |
relied on the expertise and advice of the insurance company to provide accurate information and
realistic limits to ensure | was adequately covered. | was not.
FIRE - CLAIMS 1007
My understanding is that insurance carriers use software programs to calculate the cost of
rebuilding, but most haven't adjusted their models to reflect sharp increases in the costof labor
and materials after the October wildfires. As a result, the estimates of what it costs to build a home
today in Sonoma County are far lower than they should be. The actual costof framing and roofing
is about double the amount offered by insurance companies. The cost of the project manager
alone far exceeds the amount you provide: | am doing much of the work myself and have agreed
with my general contractor that his fee is at 12% rather than the industry standard of 15%.
My coverage falls well short of what | need — by hundreds of thousands of dollars — to rebuild my
home. The California Supreme Court stated in a J anuary 2017 decision that this is a prevalent
industry problem.
As wildfires have become more destructive in California in recent years, including the local 2015
Valley fire in Lake County, the valuation of homes and property should not leave so many of us in
a position of not being able to afford to rebuild. | relied on the updated information and suggested
policy limits and, until | got these estimates, continued to believe that | would be insured even with
the costs of the many required upgrades.
Therefore, | am requesting that you review the value of my home and comparable homes before
the fire. Based on that number, the policy limits and extended replacement costs, building
ordinance law amount, and percentages for various extensions of coverage should be revisited.
The depreciation of the trees is also incorrect (trees do not depreciate as they grow).
Equally importantly, there are things that seem not to be covered at all that should be in any policy
on land: the well and tank, the septic tank, the main electrical feed and required trenching for
those pipes/lines to the residence. These should have been included in the policy. There is a
missing line item for code upgrades to the Structure B. Further, the permit fees, architectural
costs, and engineering contracts were not part of the policy. In addition, as mentioned above, the
cost of the code upgrades necessary by law will cost 50% more than what the policy provides.
These include things that are required by the law and should have been part of any code upgrade:
the fire hydrant, line trenching, booster pump, and tank pad.
With knowledge of the area and awareness of the risk of fires, with understanding of the type of
property on which | lived and the need for adequate coverage, the insurance provider failed to
provide me with adequate coverage. When the adjuster came out after the fire he then further
convoluted the matter further by grossly depreciating my home. The costs of labor and materials
have skyrocketed in the past decade (before the Tubbs Fire) and should have been considered. |
relied on the expertise of your company. | renewed this policy only weeks before the fire and the
aforementioned items should have been discussed in lightof the issues addressed. For these
reasons, as | submit the signed invoices and contracts for approval, | request your review of my
entire claim from before the fire to today.
FIRE - CLAIMS 1008
Sincerely,
Gary Koop
Attachments:
1. Letter: Copy of Email
2. Zip File Including:
Rebuild Signed Contract with Estimates for Rebuild of Home (6 pages)
Rebuild Estimate for Shop/Garage
Required Supplement Code Upgrade List and Costs
Architectural and Design Permit Phase Paid Invoice
Architectural Design Paid Invoice (2 pages)
Geotechnical Report (2 pages)
Geotechnical P aid Invoice
Sonoma County Permit Paid Invoice
Structural Calculations and Details for Design Support Paid Invoice
Septic System Evaluation Paid Invoice
Septic Systems Inspections (3 pages)
Digital Blueprints Paid Invoice
Pump and Well Repair Paid Invoice
FIRE - CLAIMS 1009
EXHIBIT 32
EXHIBIT 32
Toll Free: (800) 435-7764
Email: myclaim@farmersinsurance.com
FARMERS National Document Center
INSURANCE PO. Box 268994
Oklahoma City, OK 73126-8994
Fax: (877) 217-1389
June 21, 2019
GARY S KOOP
514 WESTMONTCT
HEALDSBURG CA 95448
RE Insured: Gary Koop
Claim Unit Number: 3009622336-1-1
Policy Number: 0926772987
Loss Date: 10/10/2017
Location of Loss: 2650 Amber Ln, Santa Rosa, CA
Subject: Your payment
Dear Mr. Koop:
Thank you for choosing us to provide for your insurance needs. We value you as a customer and appreciate the
opportunity to be of service.
I've enclosed a check for $233,640.00.
This payment is for the Extended Replacement Cost and Building, Ordinance, Law coverages for the building
and separate structures. The full policy limits have been paid and this portion of your claim is considered
complete and closed. Attached is a worksheet outlining the payment.
Cashing this check does not mean you are releasing your rights to recover any additional benefits under your
policy's terms and conditions.
California law and regulations require that we provide you with written notice of any limitation period upon
which we may rely to deny a claim.
Please refer to the Section I — Property Conditions part of your policy, which states:
SECTION I - PROPERTY CONDITIONS
13 Suit Against Us.
No suit or other action can be brought against us, our agents or our representatives unless there has
been full compliance with all the terms of this policy, including submission to requested examinations
under oath. Suit on or arising out of the SECTION I - PROPERTY COVERAGE of this policy must
be brought within one year after inception of the loss or damage.
PZVRVAX5: FIRE - CLAIMS 0372
In addition, we may deny a claim based on the applicable California statute of limitations. If the loss is related
to a state of emergency, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 8558 of the Government Code, the time limit to
bring suit is extended to 24 months after inception of the loss.
We've completed the adjustment of your loss and we are closing your claim. While we welcome any additional
information you may wish to provide, the claim will not be reopened unless we notify you of such in writing.
Submission of supplemental claims and requests for recoverable depreciation, and our processing payment
thereof, does not automatically reopen the claim.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (913) 227-2413.
Thank you.
Fire Insurance Exchange
Tiwana Williams
Claims Representative
tiwana.williams@farmersinsurance.com
(913) 227-2413
CC: BRIAN HUNSAKER, NANCY HOWARD
Check(s): 1624111259
Enclosure(s):
General Supporting Documents -
PZVRVAX5: FIRE - CLAIMS 0373
Claim #: 30096223361 Fire Insurance Exchange]
Insured: GARY KOOP
NEXT GENERATION HOMEOWNERS|
‘Adjuster: Jason D Jones Ro]
DOL: 10/10/2017 56-5532)
we jednesday. June 1 1019
eee REE Lua ee Seats
Key Policy Description: Policy Limits:
Coverage (primary BLDG): $649,000.00]
[Coverage "A" (total): $811,250.00}
[Coverage "A" debris removal:
‘Additional Coverage
[Coverage “A” debris removal (total): $32,450.00
Coverage "! " (other structures)
[Coverage "B” (total ): $64,900.00
Coverage " debris removal:
‘Addtional Coverage
[Coverage "B” debris removal (total): $3,245.00
Building Ordinance & Law:
‘Additional Coverage
[Building Ordinance & Law (total): $71,390.00]
jTrees, Shrubs, Plants & Lawns:
‘Addtional Coverage
Trees, Shrubs, Plants & Lawns (tol $32,450.00]
Total Replacement Cost $1,015,685.00}
ess Coverage "A" Recoverable feciation>
Actual Cash Value $1,015,685.00}
Deductible Absorbed due to Over Limit
Total Amount Due: $1,075,685.00|
Description of Payment Date of Payment Amount of Payment
= Total prior payments > $782,045.00)
This payment: $233,640.00]
FIRE - CLAIMS 0374
EXHIBIT 33
EXHIBIT 33
——
==
Date Received : 9/19/2019 7:40:55 PM
Subject : [EXTERNAL] Gary Koop Claim # #3009622336-1-1
Sender : madmoto250@ att.net
To : Jason.2.jones@ farmersinsurance.com; ClaimsDocuments2@ farmersinsurance.com;
justin.1.price@ farmersinsurance.com; bhunsaker@ farmersagent.com
cc : madmoto250@ att.net
Bcc
Date Sent : 9/19/2019 7:40:38 PM
——
==
To whom it may concern;
As | go through the process of rebuilding my home, and follow the steps to continue future
insurance on said home, | recognize even more how woefully underinsured | was priorto the 2017
Tubbs fire. My insurance policy means | cannot replace or rebuild my home to its pre-loss
condition. Farmers Insurance under-estimated the replacement cost of my home, despite knowing
the property details and the comparable homes in the area. As a result, | was lulled into a false
sense of security after being advised that the policy limits selected for me were adequate. Instead,
| find that not only are they insufficient to cover the total replacement cost of my home after the
devastation of the county due to the Tubbs fire, the limits would have been inadequate to replace
my house regardless of the restof the county and increased building cost.
In short, the lack of diligence in setting appropriate policy limits for years, beginning in 2006, the
continued disregard even after concerns discussed about appropriate coverage in 2015, and the
failure to address necessary changes needed priorto annual renewal just three weeks before the
fire in 2017, prove that Farmers Insurance and its agents failed to provide informed information,
adequate coverage, and knew, or should have known, that its recommended policy limits would be
insufficientto cover the total replacement
cost of my home.
FIRE - CLAIMS 0507
Moreover, as the insurance premiums and required details for my homeowners’ policy for the
rebuild begin, | further recognize the omissions and negligence that led to my financial detriment
and Farmers Insurances’ financial benefit. Accordingly, | am seeking compensation for my loss.
The attached 8 page document details the issues and proposed remedies. | have been in touch
with counsel and recognize the statute of limitations is quickly approaching. | preferto settle this
matter without pursuing legal action. | request that you respond within five business days.
Sincerely,
Gary Koop
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-
v1.gif] Virus-free.
www.avast.com
FIRE - CLAIMS 0508
Ga Koo
Policy #0926772987
Claim # 3009622336-1-1
P.O. Box 2263
Healdsburg, CA 95448
To whom it may concern;
As | go through the process of rebuilding my home, and follow the steps to continue
future insurance on said home, | recognize even more how woefully underinsured | was
priorto the 2017 Tubbs fire. My insurance policy means | cannot replace or rebuild my
home to its pre-loss condition. Farmers Insurance under-estimated the replacement
cost of my home, despite knowing the property details and the comparable homes in the
area. As a result, | was lulled into a false sense of security after being advised that the
policy limits selected for me were adequate. Instead, | find that not only are they
insufficient to cover the total replacement cost of my home after the devastation of the
county due to the Tubbs fire, the limits would have been inadequate to replace my
house regardless of the rest of the county and increased building cost.
In short, the lack of diligence in setting appropriate policy limits for years, beginning in
2006, the continued disregard even after concerns discussed about appropriate
coverage in 2015, and the failure to address necessary changes needed priorto annual
renewal just three weeks before the fire in 2017, prove that Farmers Insurance and its
agents failed to provide informed information, adequate coverage, and knew, or should
have known, that its recommended policy limits would be insufficient to cover the total
replacement cost of my home.
Moreover, as the insurance premiums and required details for my homeowners’ policy
for the rebuild begin, | further recognize the omissions and negligence that led to my
financial detriment and Farmers Insurances’ financial benefit. Accordingly, | am seeking
compensation for my loss.
PRE-FIRE COSTS
While rising construction costs can create a gap between a home's original insurance
coverage and the cost of rebuilding, there was a lack of diligence in advising me to have
an insurance policy that would cover loss even before the slate of fires increased the
costs of building. Three homes within several miles of my property had rebuilds/builds in
the year before the fire:
1) A Fountaingrove home with a kitchen remodel;
2) A Foothills home with a large extension; and
3) An Amber Lane with a new house.
All three of these homes paid between $500 and $600 per square foot for building costs
in the year before the Tubbs fire. As these homes are comparable homes with regard to
sale price, location, and design, these are examples of pre-fire comps for building and
insurance costs. My home was insured for $276.80 per square foot to rebuild. This is an
egregious error. This inane amount is compounded by the devastation to Santa Rosa
after the Tubbs Fire.
1
FIRE - CLAIMS 0509
Ga Koo
Policy #0926772987
Claim # 3009622336-1-1
P.O. Box 2263
Healdsburg, CA 95448
INADEQUATE INSURANCE
e My dwelling was insured for $649,000.
e The extended replacement cost (not guaranteed replacement cost) was
$162,250.
e The total policy payout for my dwelling was $811,250.
e The square footage of the dwelling was 2,930.
e The amount you insured my house for pre-fire was $276.80 per square foot.
GUARANTEED VS. REPLACEMENT COST
| was never given an option and was never informed about the difference between
guaranteed and replacement cost insurance. Because | was not given the option of
guaranteed replacement cost, my policy had only extended replacement costs and
omitted to include necessary portions of my property. Not only was | underinsured, |
was improperly insured for the type of property | had.
The costs incurred to replace my home are:
e Dwelling: $1,550,000
e Well / Septic / Underground Electricity: $48,429
e Permits / Engineer / Architect: $24,558
e Debris Removal: $33,384 plus an outstanding amount of $49,000 owed to
the county
e TOTAL: $1,705,371($492 per square foot)
The following items must also be included:
e Separate Structures: Estimated and bid at $100,000
e Landscaping: Estimated as $100,000
Therefore, the replacement cost of my house is $1,905,371. | argue that the omission of
providing the option of guaranteed replacement cost insurance was negligent and
submit that the replacement cost of my home should be paid in full.
EXTENDED REPLACEMENT COST
Or, because the policy itself was abysmally low, | submit that you retroactively set my
policy for rebuild costs based on the above calculations at $492 per square foot for a
total of $1,622,997.
2
FIRE - CLAIMS 0510
Ga Koo
Policy #0926772987
Claim # 3009622336-1-1
P.O. Box 2263
Healdsburg, CA 95448
The calculation provided for extended replacement costs was limited to 25%. Again, this
was not discussed and was set arbitrarily by my agent. The agent failed to provide
information to me in order for me to make an informed decision about whether | was
adequately insured. | relied on the advice and expertise of Farmers Insurance and its
agent; | was not given any options. My agent knew, or should have known, that the
extended replacement cost would not adequately insure even if the amount was set at
50%.
Accordingly, 50% of the cost per square foot ($492 x 3294 square feet) totals $811,498.
The percentages for the rest of the coverages then break down to the following amounts
(which still do not cover
the upgrades and costs):
Separate Structures at 10%: $162,299
Code Upgrades for the Dwelling at 10%: $162,299
Code Upgrades for Separate Structure at 10%: $16,229
House Debris Removal at 5%: $81,149.85
Trees / Shrubs Coverage at 5%: $81,149.85
Separate Structure Debris Removal at 5%: $8,114
The reasonable pre-fire amount of cost of building per square foot and adding the
appropriate percentages of coverages totals $2,767,207.70. Y ou will note that the
upgrades were not added into this total as they were part of the price per square foot
cost.
BUILDING CODE UPGRADE COVERAGE
Also called Ordinance and Law coverage, this is an important option that covers
additional costs to repair or replace a dwelling to comply with the building codes and
zoning laws in effect at the time of loss or rebuilding. These costs may otherwise be
excluded by your policy. Meeting current building code requirements can add
significant costs to rebuilding your home. Insurance policies set this out for up to 50%
coverage.
| was never informed of the different options and percentages and not told | had options
for building code upgrade coverage. Accordingly, | submit that Farmers Insurance and
its agents knew or should have known that | was grossly underinsured for code
upgrades. My home was built in 1978 and had been insured by the same company
since before the time it was sold to me in 2006. The required upgrades change annually
and certainly the difference in upgrades between 2006 and 2017, let alone between
1978 and 2017 should have been recognized as an important part of the policy to
discuss and increase. This was never done.
FIRE - CLAIMS 0511
Ga Koo
Policy #0926772987
Claim # 3009622336-1-1
P.O. Box 2263
Healdsburg, CA 95448
The state list of code upgrades that | am required to do includes materials for siding,
soffit vents, hold downs, plumbing, electrical, windows and doors. Further, | have been
mandated to add fire sprinklers, a tank pad for a water tank, trenching for fire hydrant
line, and a fire hydrant on the property. This is just the beginning and thus far has
totaled $185,622.64; far in excess of the policy amount provided for all code upgrades.
This is a gross oversight and this negligence has caused and will continue to cause
severe financial detriment.
Accordingly, | request that my policy be retroactively set to include a 50% building code
upgrade for the dwelling and separate structures.
INFLATION
| question whether my insurance company ever adjusted the policy to account for
inflation; the fact is that the average annual increase for residential construction costs
between 2013 to 2017 was 5.8 percent, more than four times faster than U.S. inflation
and yet | was never advised to increase my policy. Thus, the longer | owned my home,
the less my original insurance policy covered to rebuild.
In Santa Rosa, construction costs doubled after last year's wildfires. But the fact is that
the costto rebuild my own was not reflected in the advice or policy coverage | had for
years before the fire.
| should have been given more information from the initial policy coverage through the
years to the latest renewal in orderto make an informed decision about my coverage.
Instead, | relied on the expertise of a company who | believe knew the costs, area, and
requirements. In lightof the ongoing risk of wildfire, my insurance agent should have re
evaluated my policy using the company's models. With the latest renewal of my policy a
mere three weeks before the fire, and months after the 2017 California Supreme Court
cases addressing insurance policies and fires, and after the wildfires hitting California
for years, Farmers Insurance knew, or should have known about adequate coverage,
fire risk and the increased costs needed to adequately insure my home. | believed that
my insurance company followed policies, law, and specifications to ensure proper
coverage; | was lulled into a false sense of security. | thought that my biggest asset was
fully and properly insured. This is not the case. It turns out | far have less insurance than
| need to repair and replace what | lost.
STANDARD VALUATION
| understand it is common practice for insurance agents to use software to price a
home's replacement values. Asking a basic set of questions, the agent inputs the info
into the software. The less detail inputted, the lower the calculated value will
be. Although | have had continuous coverage with Farmers Insurance since the date |
4
FIRE - CLAIMS 0512
Ga Koo
Policy #0926772987
Claim # 3009622336-1-1
P.O. Box 2263
Healdsburg, CA 95448
purchased the home, | was never asked questions about the structure or the property.
And, because my Contents, ALE, Trees/Shrubs and Other Structures coverages were
set as an automatic percentage of my dwelling limits, | find myself underinsured in all
categories. Until | had a total loss, | lived with a false sense of security about the
adequacy of my coverage. Farmers Insurance and its agent set the policy limits with
the previous homeowner. You are the pundit; you hold yourselves out as the expert.
Consumers reasonably rely on their insurers/agents to handle our transactions
competently.
| did not know that an insurer or agent would ask questions about the property, input the
answers into a software program and have it spit out a policy quote - until this month
when | have been asked copious questions about the course of construction, the type of
building, the upgrades, and the outbuilding. Obviously, Farmers Insurance and its
agents are aware of this standard practice. Because this did not happen when |
purchased the policy in 2006, nor at any renewal since then, | believe you omitted
pertinent information and knowledge that would have allowed an adequate valuation. At
best, this is lazy; at worst the omission is negligence or more. Farmers Insurance has
issued the policy and cashed the premium checks without due diligence not expecting
total loss. This is sloppy professionalism: | should be able to rely on the expertise of my
insurance company and its sales agents.
2017 CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT RULING
Insurance companies usually give homeowners estimates of the cost of replacing their
property so they have an idea of how much coverage to buy. A study of homes
destroyed by Southern California wildfires in 2007 that found only 26 percent of the
owners’ policies fully
Preview
PETER SCHWARTZ (SBN: 109859) Bay ONES QBN: 112307) djones m.com CHRISTOPHER R. WAGNER (SBN: 162092) Cwagnel m.com STEVEN R. INOUYE (SBN: 245024) sinouyet irsm.com GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 633 West Fifth Street, 52" Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 576-5019 Facsimile: (213) 680-4470 Attorneys for Defendant, FIRE INSURANCE EX CHANGE 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF SONOMA - HALL OF JUSTICE ag 12 GARY KOOP, CASE NO. SCV-266944 a [Assigned for All Purposes to Hon. OscarA. 13 Plaintiff, Pardo, Dept. 19] 14 vs. SECOND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF FIRE 15 FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, dba INSURANCE EXCHANGE’S FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP; OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S 16 BRIAN HUNSAKER, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, 17 Defendants SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 18 [Filed concurrently with Opposition Memorandum of Points of Authority; 19 Opposition Separate Statement of Material Facts] 20 Date: June 28, 2023 21 Time: 3:00 p.m. Dept.: 19 22 Complaint filed: August 24, 2020 23 Trial Date: November 8, 2023 24 25 26 Pursuant to Califomia Evidence Code sections 452 and/or 453, defendant Fire Insurance 27 Exchange (“Fire”) hereby requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following documents 28 filed in this action: “1 SECOND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (1) Exhibit B The Declaration of Jason Jones submitted in support of Fire’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed on September 30, 2021, including the following exhibits attached thereto: e Exhibit 11 — First Notice of Loss dated October 11, 2017 e Exhibit 15 — Request for Authority e Exhibit 31 — Plaintiff’s letter to Fire dated June 18, 2019 requesting to reform the policy Exhibit 32 — Fire’s letter to Plaintiff dated June 21, 2019 providing Extended Replacement Cost payments to Plaintiff 10 Exhibit 33 - Plaintiff's letter to Fire dated September 19, 2019 requesting to 11 reform the policy ag 12 Exhibit 34 - Fire’s letter to Plaintiff dated September 25, 2019 declining a 13 Plaintiffs reformation request 14 Exhibit 40 - Plaintiffs counsel letter to Fire dated July 17, 2020 requesting 15 reconsideration of the reformation request us 16 Exhibit41 - Fire’s letter to Plaintiffs counsel dated July 27, 2020 declining 17 Plaintiffs second reformation request 18 19 (2) Exhibit C The Declaration of Stacy Tucker submitted in support of Plaintiff's 20 instant Motion for Summary Judgment, including the following exhibits attached thereto: 21 e Exhibit 3 - Liz Evans’ email to Plaintiff dated September 1, 2015 which included 22 her 360V alue reconstruction cost estimate. 23 Exhibit 19 — Log Notes 24 Exhibit 24 — Deposition of Brian Hunsaker 25 Exhibit 25 — Deposition of Justin Price 26 Exhibit 26 — Deposition of Brianne Hall 27 e Exhibit 27 — Deposition of Liz Evans 28 e Exhibit 29 — Request for Authority -2- SECOND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Exhibit 32 — Log Notes Exhibit 43 Deposition of Jared Schmitz Exhibit 44 — 2013 Insurance Policy Exhibit 45 — 2013 360V alue Estimate Exhibit 46 — 2013 Declarations Page and Changes Exhibit 47 — 2014 Insurance Policy Exhibit 48 — 2014 Policy Change Exhibit 49 — 2015 Renewal Offer Exhibit 50 — 2006 to 2008 Insurance Policies 10 (4) Complaint filed by Plaintiff on August 24, 2020 in this action; 11 (5) First Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on or about January 6, 2021 in this ag 12 action; and a 13 (6) Answer to the First Amended Complaint filed by Fire on February 9, 2021 in this 14 action. 15 16 Dated: June 9, 2023 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 17 18 By: Sk hn Peter Schwartz David L. Jones 19 Christopher R. Wagner Steven R. Inouye 20 Attomeys for Defendant FIRE INSURANCE EX CHANGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 “3 SECOND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT EXHIBITB EXHIBITB PETER SCHWARTZ (SBN: 109859) ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Courtof California BAD L TONES BN: 112307) County of Sonoma 10/4/2021 12:34 PM HIRISTOPHER R. WAGNER (SBN: 162092) Arlene D. J unior, Clerk of the Court By: J ennifer Ellis, Deputy Clerk GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANT, LLP 633 West Fifth Street, 52™ floor Los les, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 576-5019 Facsimile: (213) 680-4470 Attol for Defendant FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA. 10 COUNTY OF SONOMA 11 GARY KOOP, CASE NO. SCV-266944 [Assigned to the Hon. Gary Nadler, Dept. 12 Plaintiff, 19] a 13 vs. DECLARATION OF JASONJONES INSUPPORT OF MOTION FOR 14 FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, dba SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP; BRIAN ALTERNATIVELY, SUMMARY 15 HUNSAKER, ADJUDICATION by 16 Defendants. [Filed concurrently with Notice of Motion and Motion for S £8 17 J Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts, Request for Judicial 18 Notice, Evidence in Support of Motion, and Declaration Christopher R. Wagner] 19 Date, 1-26-22 20 Time: 3:00pm Dept. #19 21 Complaint filed: August 24, 2020 Trial: April 8, 2022 24 25 26 27 “1 DECLARATION OF JASONJONES RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Fire’s denial of Mr. Koop’s request for reformation of the Policy. This document is maintained by Fire in the regular course of its business in the claim files pertaining to the Loss. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on this a day of September YoRat ra a 2021, at, > i isi ps 10 11 oS 12 aS B3c BE BYR 13 ge 14 Bag Bs 15 a3 16 e234 sm Ee 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~10- DECLARATION OF JASON JONES RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT _ _ _ ee EXHIBIT 11 EXHIBIT 11 10/11/2017 Brian Hunsaker: 96-05-325: Subject: A new claim has been reported Insured: Gary Koop Claim Unit Number: 3009622336 -1-1 Policy Number: 0926772987 Loss Date: 10/10/2017 Insured Contact information is as follows: Primary: (707) 322-6549 Cell: (707) 322-6549 Loss Description: HJ1 Fire & Removal Claim Assignments: 1) Unit type: Building Customer/Claimant GARY KOOP CR Name: PROPERTY QUEUE CR Phone: (800) 435-7764 CR Fax: Office: NATIONAL CATASTROPHE COE Office Phone: (800) 435-7764 2) Unit type: Contents Customer/Claimant GARY KOOP CR Name: PROPERTY QUEUE CR Phone: (800) 435-7764 CR Fax: Office: NATIONAL CATASTROPHE COE Office Phone: (800) 435-7764 Should you have any questions, please contact the appropriate assigned Claim Representative or refer to https://eagent.farmersinsurance.com/ for additional claim details on the Agency Dashboard.You may also want to consider following up with your customer with an FFR in the near future. According to J.D. Power and Associates, an agent can significantly improve their customer's claim experience and chances of retention by contacting the customer after the claim is reported and again, about a week later. Simply showing that you care enough to make sure their claim is going well is all you need to do to help deliver an FIRE - CLAIMS 0317 exceptional customer experience and improve the chances of retaining the customer at renewal. This proactive follow-up has been identified as a "best practice" by J.D. Power and Associates for insurance companies that market & service their products through agent distribution channels. FIRE - CLAIMS 0318 EXHIBIT 15 EXHIBIT 15 fo" FARMERS INSURANCE MEMO REQUEST FOR AUTHORITY To: Committee for Authority — Large Property Date of Initial Report: 11/13/17 Date of 1‘ Supplemental Report: Date of 2"! Supplemental Report: Claim Number: 3009622336-1 Insured name: Gary Koop DOL: 10/9/17 General A djuster: Colin Nolan Dept.: East Zone Large Property DETAILS OF RISK: This is a 2,967 square foot, 5 bedroom, and 3.5 bathroom home located in the Foothills area of Santa Rosa, California. Many of the features of the home were of a premium grade quality. Home was built on a hillside and has limited access from a one lane private road. An estimate was completed and our estimate exceeds policy limits on an ACV basis and ERC on an RCV basis. Policy limits will be paid now and ERC when incurred GENERAL FACTS OF LOSS: This is a fire loss to our customer’s home located in Santa Rosa area of Northem California. The fire is due to the wildfire in the area and is part of CAT HJ1. DAMAGES: Structure: General A djuster completed estimate using Total Valuation tool obtaining details of the property from the customer. The home is a total loss and there is little recognizable. The foundation was also damaged by heat from the fire and will need to be replaced. e Debris Removal- Debris removal was calculated using X actimate. Due to the large amount of concrete being removed, additional low boy dumpsters were included in the estimate. Additional care is required as the debris is on a hillside with homes below. The estimate has exceeded Debris Removal limits. The same is true for separate structures. Therefore, requesting limits for both lines of coverage. TSPL- The home was landscaped with several different fruit and flowering/shade trees. The home is built on a large lot with many mature trees with values exceeding $750. There was also a large amount FIRE - CLAIMS 0954 of shrubs, ground covers, etc, planted around the property. The TSPL coverage has been exceeded. Requesting limits. Code- The home was built in 1976. Requesting full amount of code coverage at this time for potential items required by the city/county. BOL concerns include architecture and fire prevention plan fees as well as codes Potential items for mandated upgrades as required by new construction ordinances. I have included request for BOL coverage in anticipation of the future need Separate Structure: The property contained several separate structures multi-level deck, fort, fences on and splitting the property, boat shelter, chicken coop, patios, walkways, stairways, wood shed, and a detached garage that is fully finished. All sustained damage from the fire and will be required to be replaced. I stopped estimating separate structures once the policy limit was exceeded at acv, policy limits are being requested. Contents: The home was well furnished. The Koop’s live at the home with their 2 children and 2 parents. Mr. Koop has contents in the separate structures, garage, and one of the rooms in the home is a game room with pool tables, arcade games, ping pong table, foosball at the loss location and all fumnishings and personal items in his possession at the home. The insureds shopped at high end stores for clothing, appliances, and furniture. It is likely that the personal property inventory will reach $486,750. All items are a total loss. Requesting authority for policy limits at this time. ALE: SVE for the home is $5789. 24 months ALE at that rate is $138,936. Requesting $150,000 at this time to account for any interim ALE costs. FINANCIAL AUTHORITY REQUESTED COVERAGE DESCRIPTION // LIMITS Line of Coverage Policy Limits Coverage A- Bldg $649,000.00) $649,000.00] $0.00] $0.00] ERC - 25% $162,250.00) $162,250.00| $0.00] $0.00] Debris Removal - 5% $32,450.00} $32,450.00| $0.00] $0.00] Landscaping - 5% $32,450.00} $32,450.00| $0.00] $0.00] Code Upgrade - 10% * $64,900.00} $64,900.00 $0.00] $0.00] Coverage B - Sep. Struct. $64,900.00} $64,900.00 $0.00] $0.00] Debris Removal - 5% $3,245.00] $3,245.00] $0.00] $0.00] Code Upgrade - 10% * $6,490.00} $6,490.00] $0.00] $0.00] Sum - Coverage A & B Coverage C - Contents $486,750.00) $486,750.00| $146,025.00| $146,025.00] Debris Removal - 5% $24,337.50} $0.00] $0.00] $0.00] Sum - Cov C & Contents Debris Removal Coverage D - ALE/Rents $259,600.00] $150,000.00] $0.00] $0.00] Totals FIRE - CLAIMS 0955 EXHIBIT 31 EXHIBIT 31 From: Gary Koop [mailto:madmoto250@ att.net] Sent: Tuesday, J une 18, 2019 10:53 AM To: J ason J ones ; gary koop Subject: [EXTERNAL] Gary Koop Insurance Claim #3009622336-1-1 Gary Koop P.O. Box 2263 Healdsburg, CA 95448 June 17, 2019 Jason J ones P.O. Box 268994 Oklahoma City, OK 73126-8994 RE: Gary Koop Insurance Claim #3009622336-1-1 To whom it may concern: Today, | received the proposed estimate from the project managerto rebuild my 2650 Amber Lane property lost in the 2017 Tubbs Fire. | have been in discussion with contractors and subs as | move forward on rebuilding my residence. The cost to rebuild far exceeds the insurance money available. In addition, the required code upgrades are astronomical. After looking through the policy and the initial explanation of payment that Colin Nolan, General Claims Adjuster, sentto me on November 23, 2017, | find | am concerned that | have not been properly advised and covered for years. The claims adjuster provided the copy of his estimate of the damage to my property and the cost to repair it. The details and the figures seem incredibly low. There is a meaningful difference between the amount offered and the amount | need to repair and replace my lost property. After seeing the estimate for the rebuild and the listof upgrades required by law, | am dismayed at the enormous gap between the limits of the policy and the true cost to replace the home. | recognize that | was also very underinsured for my personal property possessions but take responsibility for not providing enough detail to ensure | was advised properly on what it would take to replace my belongings. However, when it comes to rebuilding a home after a total loss | relied on the expertise and advice of the insurance company to provide accurate information and realistic limits to ensure | was adequately covered. | was not. FIRE - CLAIMS 1007 My understanding is that insurance carriers use software programs to calculate the cost of rebuilding, but most haven't adjusted their models to reflect sharp increases in the costof labor and materials after the October wildfires. As a result, the estimates of what it costs to build a home today in Sonoma County are far lower than they should be. The actual costof framing and roofing is about double the amount offered by insurance companies. The cost of the project manager alone far exceeds the amount you provide: | am doing much of the work myself and have agreed with my general contractor that his fee is at 12% rather than the industry standard of 15%. My coverage falls well short of what | need — by hundreds of thousands of dollars — to rebuild my home. The California Supreme Court stated in a J anuary 2017 decision that this is a prevalent industry problem. As wildfires have become more destructive in California in recent years, including the local 2015 Valley fire in Lake County, the valuation of homes and property should not leave so many of us in a position of not being able to afford to rebuild. | relied on the updated information and suggested policy limits and, until | got these estimates, continued to believe that | would be insured even with the costs of the many required upgrades. Therefore, | am requesting that you review the value of my home and comparable homes before the fire. Based on that number, the policy limits and extended replacement costs, building ordinance law amount, and percentages for various extensions of coverage should be revisited. The depreciation of the trees is also incorrect (trees do not depreciate as they grow). Equally importantly, there are things that seem not to be covered at all that should be in any policy on land: the well and tank, the septic tank, the main electrical feed and required trenching for those pipes/lines to the residence. These should have been included in the policy. There is a missing line item for code upgrades to the Structure B. Further, the permit fees, architectural costs, and engineering contracts were not part of the policy. In addition, as mentioned above, the cost of the code upgrades necessary by law will cost 50% more than what the policy provides. These include things that are required by the law and should have been part of any code upgrade: the fire hydrant, line trenching, booster pump, and tank pad. With knowledge of the area and awareness of the risk of fires, with understanding of the type of property on which | lived and the need for adequate coverage, the insurance provider failed to provide me with adequate coverage. When the adjuster came out after the fire he then further convoluted the matter further by grossly depreciating my home. The costs of labor and materials have skyrocketed in the past decade (before the Tubbs Fire) and should have been considered. | relied on the expertise of your company. | renewed this policy only weeks before the fire and the aforementioned items should have been discussed in lightof the issues addressed. For these reasons, as | submit the signed invoices and contracts for approval, | request your review of my entire claim from before the fire to today. FIRE - CLAIMS 1008 Sincerely, Gary Koop Attachments: 1. Letter: Copy of Email 2. Zip File Including: Rebuild Signed Contract with Estimates for Rebuild of Home (6 pages) Rebuild Estimate for Shop/Garage Required Supplement Code Upgrade List and Costs Architectural and Design Permit Phase Paid Invoice Architectural Design Paid Invoice (2 pages) Geotechnical Report (2 pages) Geotechnical P aid Invoice Sonoma County Permit Paid Invoice Structural Calculations and Details for Design Support Paid Invoice Septic System Evaluation Paid Invoice Septic Systems Inspections (3 pages) Digital Blueprints Paid Invoice Pump and Well Repair Paid Invoice FIRE - CLAIMS 1009 EXHIBIT 32 EXHIBIT 32 Toll Free: (800) 435-7764 Email: myclaim@farmersinsurance.com FARMERS National Document Center INSURANCE PO. Box 268994 Oklahoma City, OK 73126-8994 Fax: (877) 217-1389 June 21, 2019 GARY S KOOP 514 WESTMONTCT HEALDSBURG CA 95448 RE Insured: Gary Koop Claim Unit Number: 3009622336-1-1 Policy Number: 0926772987 Loss Date: 10/10/2017 Location of Loss: 2650 Amber Ln, Santa Rosa, CA Subject: Your payment Dear Mr. Koop: Thank you for choosing us to provide for your insurance needs. We value you as a customer and appreciate the opportunity to be of service. I've enclosed a check for $233,640.00. This payment is for the Extended Replacement Cost and Building, Ordinance, Law coverages for the building and separate structures. The full policy limits have been paid and this portion of your claim is considered complete and closed. Attached is a worksheet outlining the payment. Cashing this check does not mean you are releasing your rights to recover any additional benefits under your policy's terms and conditions. California law and regulations require that we provide you with written notice of any limitation period upon which we may rely to deny a claim. Please refer to the Section I — Property Conditions part of your policy, which states: SECTION I - PROPERTY CONDITIONS 13 Suit Against Us. No suit or other action can be brought against us, our agents or our representatives unless there has been full compliance with all the terms of this policy, including submission to requested examinations under oath. Suit on or arising out of the SECTION I - PROPERTY COVERAGE of this policy must be brought within one year after inception of the loss or damage. PZVRVAX5: FIRE - CLAIMS 0372 In addition, we may deny a claim based on the applicable California statute of limitations. If the loss is related to a state of emergency, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 8558 of the Government Code, the time limit to bring suit is extended to 24 months after inception of the loss. We've completed the adjustment of your loss and we are closing your claim. While we welcome any additional information you may wish to provide, the claim will not be reopened unless we notify you of such in writing. Submission of supplemental claims and requests for recoverable depreciation, and our processing payment thereof, does not automatically reopen the claim. If you have any questions, please contact me at (913) 227-2413. Thank you. Fire Insurance Exchange Tiwana Williams Claims Representative tiwana.williams@farmersinsurance.com (913) 227-2413 CC: BRIAN HUNSAKER, NANCY HOWARD Check(s): 1624111259 Enclosure(s): General Supporting Documents - PZVRVAX5: FIRE - CLAIMS 0373 Claim #: 30096223361 Fire Insurance Exchange] Insured: GARY KOOP NEXT GENERATION HOMEOWNERS| ‘Adjuster: Jason D Jones Ro] DOL: 10/10/2017 56-5532) we jednesday. June 1 1019 eee REE Lua ee Seats Key Policy Description: Policy Limits: Coverage (primary BLDG): $649,000.00] [Coverage "A" (total): $811,250.00} [Coverage "A" debris removal: ‘Additional Coverage [Coverage “A” debris removal (total): $32,450.00 Coverage "! " (other structures) [Coverage "B” (total ): $64,900.00 Coverage " debris removal: ‘Addtional Coverage [Coverage "B” debris removal (total): $3,245.00 Building Ordinance & Law: ‘Additional Coverage [Building Ordinance & Law (total): $71,390.00] jTrees, Shrubs, Plants & Lawns: ‘Addtional Coverage Trees, Shrubs, Plants & Lawns (tol $32,450.00] Total Replacement Cost $1,015,685.00} ess Coverage "A" Recoverable feciation> Actual Cash Value $1,015,685.00} Deductible Absorbed due to Over Limit Total Amount Due: $1,075,685.00| Description of Payment Date of Payment Amount of Payment = Total prior payments > $782,045.00) This payment: $233,640.00] FIRE - CLAIMS 0374 EXHIBIT 33 EXHIBIT 33 —— == Date Received : 9/19/2019 7:40:55 PM Subject : [EXTERNAL] Gary Koop Claim # #3009622336-1-1 Sender : madmoto250@ att.net To : Jason.2.jones@ farmersinsurance.com; ClaimsDocuments2@ farmersinsurance.com; justin.1.price@ farmersinsurance.com; bhunsaker@ farmersagent.com cc : madmoto250@ att.net Bcc Date Sent : 9/19/2019 7:40:38 PM —— == To whom it may concern; As | go through the process of rebuilding my home, and follow the steps to continue future insurance on said home, | recognize even more how woefully underinsured | was priorto the 2017 Tubbs fire. My insurance policy means | cannot replace or rebuild my home to its pre-loss condition. Farmers Insurance under-estimated the replacement cost of my home, despite knowing the property details and the comparable homes in the area. As a result, | was lulled into a false sense of security after being advised that the policy limits selected for me were adequate. Instead, | find that not only are they insufficient to cover the total replacement cost of my home after the devastation of the county due to the Tubbs fire, the limits would have been inadequate to replace my house regardless of the restof the county and increased building cost. In short, the lack of diligence in setting appropriate policy limits for years, beginning in 2006, the continued disregard even after concerns discussed about appropriate coverage in 2015, and the failure to address necessary changes needed priorto annual renewal just three weeks before the fire in 2017, prove that Farmers Insurance and its agents failed to provide informed information, adequate coverage, and knew, or should have known, that its recommended policy limits would be insufficientto cover the total replacement cost of my home. FIRE - CLAIMS 0507 Moreover, as the insurance premiums and required details for my homeowners’ policy for the rebuild begin, | further recognize the omissions and negligence that led to my financial detriment and Farmers Insurances’ financial benefit. Accordingly, | am seeking compensation for my loss. The attached 8 page document details the issues and proposed remedies. | have been in touch with counsel and recognize the statute of limitations is quickly approaching. | preferto settle this matter without pursuing legal action. | request that you respond within five business days. Sincerely, Gary Koop Sent from Mail for Windows 10 [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat- v1.gif] Virus-free. www.avast.com FIRE - CLAIMS 0508 Ga Koo Policy #0926772987 Claim # 3009622336-1-1 P.O. Box 2263 Healdsburg, CA 95448 To whom it may concern; As | go through the process of rebuilding my home, and follow the steps to continue future insurance on said home, | recognize even more how woefully underinsured | was priorto the 2017 Tubbs fire. My insurance policy means | cannot replace or rebuild my home to its pre-loss condition. Farmers Insurance under-estimated the replacement cost of my home, despite knowing the property details and the comparable homes in the area. As a result, | was lulled into a false sense of security after being advised that the policy limits selected for me were adequate. Instead, | find that not only are they insufficient to cover the total replacement cost of my home after the devastation of the county due to the Tubbs fire, the limits would have been inadequate to replace my house regardless of the rest of the county and increased building cost. In short, the lack of diligence in setting appropriate policy limits for years, beginning in 2006, the continued disregard even after concerns discussed about appropriate coverage in 2015, and the failure to address necessary changes needed priorto annual renewal just three weeks before the fire in 2017, prove that Farmers Insurance and its agents failed to provide informed information, adequate coverage, and knew, or should have known, that its recommended policy limits would be insufficient to cover the total replacement cost of my home. Moreover, as the insurance premiums and required details for my homeowners’ policy for the rebuild begin, | further recognize the omissions and negligence that led to my financial detriment and Farmers Insurances’ financial benefit. Accordingly, | am seeking compensation for my loss. PRE-FIRE COSTS While rising construction costs can create a gap between a home's original insurance coverage and the cost of rebuilding, there was a lack of diligence in advising me to have an insurance policy that would cover loss even before the slate of fires increased the costs of building. Three homes within several miles of my property had rebuilds/builds in the year before the fire: 1) A Fountaingrove home with a kitchen remodel; 2) A Foothills home with a large extension; and 3) An Amber Lane with a new house. All three of these homes paid between $500 and $600 per square foot for building costs in the year before the Tubbs fire. As these homes are comparable homes with regard to sale price, location, and design, these are examples of pre-fire comps for building and insurance costs. My home was insured for $276.80 per square foot to rebuild. This is an egregious error. This inane amount is compounded by the devastation to Santa Rosa after the Tubbs Fire. 1 FIRE - CLAIMS 0509 Ga Koo Policy #0926772987 Claim # 3009622336-1-1 P.O. Box 2263 Healdsburg, CA 95448 INADEQUATE INSURANCE e My dwelling was insured for $649,000. e The extended replacement cost (not guaranteed replacement cost) was $162,250. e The total policy payout for my dwelling was $811,250. e The square footage of the dwelling was 2,930. e The amount you insured my house for pre-fire was $276.80 per square foot. GUARANTEED VS. REPLACEMENT COST | was never given an option and was never informed about the difference between guaranteed and replacement cost insurance. Because | was not given the option of guaranteed replacement cost, my policy had only extended replacement costs and omitted to include necessary portions of my property. Not only was | underinsured, | was improperly insured for the type of property | had. The costs incurred to replace my home are: e Dwelling: $1,550,000 e Well / Septic / Underground Electricity: $48,429 e Permits / Engineer / Architect: $24,558 e Debris Removal: $33,384 plus an outstanding amount of $49,000 owed to the county e TOTAL: $1,705,371($492 per square foot) The following items must also be included: e Separate Structures: Estimated and bid at $100,000 e Landscaping: Estimated as $100,000 Therefore, the replacement cost of my house is $1,905,371. | argue that the omission of providing the option of guaranteed replacement cost insurance was negligent and submit that the replacement cost of my home should be paid in full. EXTENDED REPLACEMENT COST Or, because the policy itself was abysmally low, | submit that you retroactively set my policy for rebuild costs based on the above calculations at $492 per square foot for a total of $1,622,997. 2 FIRE - CLAIMS 0510 Ga Koo Policy #0926772987 Claim # 3009622336-1-1 P.O. Box 2263 Healdsburg, CA 95448 The calculation provided for extended replacement costs was limited to 25%. Again, this was not discussed and was set arbitrarily by my agent. The agent failed to provide information to me in order for me to make an informed decision about whether | was adequately insured. | relied on the advice and expertise of Farmers Insurance and its agent; | was not given any options. My agent knew, or should have known, that the extended replacement cost would not adequately insure even if the amount was set at 50%. Accordingly, 50% of the cost per square foot ($492 x 3294 square feet) totals $811,498. The percentages for the rest of the coverages then break down to the following amounts (which still do not cover the upgrades and costs): Separate Structures at 10%: $162,299 Code Upgrades for the Dwelling at 10%: $162,299 Code Upgrades for Separate Structure at 10%: $16,229 House Debris Removal at 5%: $81,149.85 Trees / Shrubs Coverage at 5%: $81,149.85 Separate Structure Debris Removal at 5%: $8,114 The reasonable pre-fire amount of cost of building per square foot and adding the appropriate percentages of coverages totals $2,767,207.70. Y ou will note that the upgrades were not added into this total as they were part of the price per square foot cost. BUILDING CODE UPGRADE COVERAGE Also called Ordinance and Law coverage, this is an important option that covers additional costs to repair or replace a dwelling to comply with the building codes and zoning laws in effect at the time of loss or rebuilding. These costs may otherwise be excluded by your policy. Meeting current building code requirements can add significant costs to rebuilding your home. Insurance policies set this out for up to 50% coverage. | was never informed of the different options and percentages and not told | had options for building code upgrade coverage. Accordingly, | submit that Farmers Insurance and its agents knew or should have known that | was grossly underinsured for code upgrades. My home was built in 1978 and had been insured by the same company since before the time it was sold to me in 2006. The required upgrades change annually and certainly the difference in upgrades between 2006 and 2017, let alone between 1978 and 2017 should have been recognized as an important part of the policy to discuss and increase. This was never done. FIRE - CLAIMS 0511 Ga Koo Policy #0926772987 Claim # 3009622336-1-1 P.O. Box 2263 Healdsburg, CA 95448 The state list of code upgrades that | am required to do includes materials for siding, soffit vents, hold downs, plumbing, electrical, windows and doors. Further, | have been mandated to add fire sprinklers, a tank pad for a water tank, trenching for fire hydrant line, and a fire hydrant on the property. This is just the beginning and thus far has totaled $185,622.64; far in excess of the policy amount provided for all code upgrades. This is a gross oversight and this negligence has caused and will continue to cause severe financial detriment. Accordingly, | request that my policy be retroactively set to include a 50% building code upgrade for the dwelling and separate structures. INFLATION | question whether my insurance company ever adjusted the policy to account for inflation; the fact is that the average annual increase for residential construction costs between 2013 to 2017 was 5.8 percent, more than four times faster than U.S. inflation and yet | was never advised to increase my policy. Thus, the longer | owned my home, the less my original insurance policy covered to rebuild. In Santa Rosa, construction costs doubled after last year's wildfires. But the fact is that the costto rebuild my own was not reflected in the advice or policy coverage | had for years before the fire. | should have been given more information from the initial policy coverage through the years to the latest renewal in orderto make an informed decision about my coverage. Instead, | relied on the expertise of a company who | believe knew the costs, area, and requirements. In lightof the ongoing risk of wildfire, my insurance agent should have re evaluated my policy using the company's models. With the latest renewal of my policy a mere three weeks before the fire, and months after the 2017 California Supreme Court cases addressing insurance policies and fires, and after the wildfires hitting California for years, Farmers Insurance knew, or should have known about adequate coverage, fire risk and the increased costs needed to adequately insure my home. | believed that my insurance company followed policies, law, and specifications to ensure proper coverage; | was lulled into a false sense of security. | thought that my biggest asset was fully and properly insured. This is not the case. It turns out | far have less insurance than | need to repair and replace what | lost. STANDARD VALUATION | understand it is common practice for insurance agents to use software to price a home's replacement values. Asking a basic set of questions, the agent inputs the info into the software. The less detail inputted, the lower the calculated value will be. Although | have had continuous coverage with Farmers Insurance since the date | 4 FIRE - CLAIMS 0512 Ga Koo Policy #0926772987 Claim # 3009622336-1-1 P.O. Box 2263 Healdsburg, CA 95448 purchased the home, | was never asked questions about the structure or the property. And, because my Contents, ALE, Trees/Shrubs and Other Structures coverages were set as an automatic percentage of my dwelling limits, | find myself underinsured in all categories. Until | had a total loss, | lived with a false sense of security about the adequacy of my coverage. Farmers Insurance and its agent set the policy limits with the previous homeowner. You are the pundit; you hold yourselves out as the expert. Consumers reasonably rely on their insurers/agents to handle our transactions competently. | did not know that an insurer or agent would ask questions about the property, input the answers into a software program and have it spit out a policy quote - until this month when | have been asked copious questions about the course of construction, the type of building, the upgrades, and the outbuilding. Obviously, Farmers Insurance and its agents are aware of this standard practice. Because this did not happen when | purchased the policy in 2006, nor at any renewal since then, | believe you omitted pertinent information and knowledge that would have allowed an adequate valuation. At best, this is lazy; at worst the omission is negligence or more. Farmers Insurance has issued the policy and cashed the premium checks without due diligence not expecting total loss. This is sloppy professionalism: | should be able to rely on the expertise of my insurance company and its sales agents. 2017 CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT RULING Insurance companies usually give homeowners estimates of the cost of replacing their property so they have an idea of how much coverage to buy. A study of homes destroyed by Southern California wildfires in 2007 that found only 26 percent of the owners’ policies fully