No Value: Koop vs Fire Insurance Exchange, dba Farmers Insurance Group

On August 24, 2020 a No Value was filed involving a dispute between Koop, Gary, and Fire Insurance Exchange, Dba Farmers Insurance Group, Hunsaker, Brian, for 18: Unlimited Insurance Coverage in the District Court of Sonoma County.

Preview
1 PETER SCHWARTZ (SBN: 109859)
pschwartz@grsm.com
2 DAVID L. JONES (SBN: 112307)
djones@grsm.com
3 CHRISTOPHER R. WAGNER (SBN: 162092)
cwagner@grsm.com
4 STEVEN R. INOUYE (SBN: 245024)
sinouye@grsm.com
5 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor
6 Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 576-5019
7 Facsimile: (213) 680-4470

8 Attorneys for Defendant,
FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE
9

10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

11 COUNTY OF SONOMA – HALL OF JUSTICE
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor

12 GARY KOOP, ) CASE NO. SCV-266944
[Assigned for All Purposes to Hon. Jane
Los Angeles, CA 90071

)
13 Plaintiff, ) Gaskell, Dept. 7]
)
14 vs. ) DECLARATION OF STEVEN R.
) INOUYE IN SUPPORT OF
15 FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, dba DEFENDANT FIRE INSURANCE
)
FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP; EXCHANGE’S OPPOSITION TO
16 BRIAN HUNSAKER, ) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AUGMENT
) EXPERT DESIGNATION
17 Defendants. )
) Complaint filed: August 24, 2020
18 ) Trial Date: March 29, 2024
)
19 )
20

23
24

28
-1-
DECLARATION OF STEVEN R. INOUYE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE’S
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AUGMENT EXPERT DESIGNATION
1 DECLARATION OF STEVEN R. INOUYE

2 I, Steven R. Inouye, declare:

3 1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice before all the courts of the State of

4 California and am a Senior Counsel at Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, counsel of record

5 for defendant Fire Insurance Exchange (“Fire”) in this action.

6 2. I submit this declaration in support of Fire’s opposition to Plaintiff Gary Koop’s

7 (“Plaintiff”) motion to augment expert designations in this case. The matters set forth herein are

8 based upon my personal knowledge and, if called upon as a witness, I could and would

9 competently testify thereto.

10 3. Over three years ago, on August 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Fire.

11 The Complaint asserted seven causes of action against Fire, including: (1) Breach of Contract;
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor

12 (2) Bad faith; (3) Reformation; (4) Fraud; (5) Misrepresentation; (6) Negligence; (7) and
Los Angeles, CA 90071

13 Violations of Business & Professions Code § 17200. On January 6, 2021, Plaintiff filed a First

14 Amended Complaint (“FAC”) which added his insurance agent Brian Hunsaker (“Hunsaker”) as

15 a defendant. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the FAC.

16 3. In the FAC, Plaintiff alleges that Hunsaker’s office sent Plaintiff a 360Value

17 Reconstruction Cost Estimate on September 1, 2015 which described Plaintiff’s home as “above

18 average” and estimated that it would cost $502,000 to rebuild. (FAC, ¶ 6.) Plaintiff claims that

19 he relied upon the 360Value estimate and believed that he was “fully insured” to rebuild his
20 home in the event of a fire. (Id.)

21 4. In September 2017, Plaintiff alleges that he renewed the insurance policy with a

22 dwelling coverage limit of $649,000. (FAC, ¶ 11) Shortly thereafter, in October 2017,

23 Plaintiff’s home was destroyed in the Tubbs Fire. (FAC, ¶ 12)
24 5. Two years later in June 2019, Plaintiff allegedly obtained an estimate from a local

25 contractor which indicated that it would cost $2.7 million to rebuild Plaintiff’s home. (FAC, ¶

26 18) Plaintiff claims that he requested that Fire reform his policy in order to increase his coverage

27 limits to this amount, but Fire refused. (FAC, ¶ 49) As such, Plaintiff claims that his alleged

28 ///
-2-
DECLARATION OF STEVEN R. INOUYE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE’S
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AUGMENT EXPERT DESIGNATION
1 damages should be calculated based upon the difference between Plaintiff’s contractor estimate

2 minus the coverage benefits Plaintiff received from Fire. (FAC, ¶ 50)

3 6. Eight months ago, on March 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed two motions for summary

4 judgment against Fire and Hunsaker, respectively. Plaintiff had previously filed a similar motion

5 for summary judgment on October 26, 2022, which was withdrawn. In the motions, Plaintiff

6 argued that the overall quality grade of his home should have been considered “premium” under

7 Farmers’ underwriting guidelines, not “above average.” Plaintiff further argued that his alleged

8 damages should be calculated using the 360Value program by comparing the difference between

9 a “premium” quality grade home, rather than an “above average” quality grade home. Attached

10 hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment

11 against Fire.
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor

12 7. Plaintiff explained his theory of damages as follows: “Where 360Value bases its
Los Angeles, CA 90071

13 calculations on current numbers, Plaintiff has not been able to precisely determine what

14 Plaintiff’s coverage would have been in 2017 had the correct quality grade been used [in

15 360Value] and had Plaintiff been given the opportunity to select his coverage limits with the

16 higher limits available. By looking at the 2023 differences for a property at his address today,

17 with the same square footage, Plaintiff can determine that coverage for a quality grade of

18 premium provides 55% more coverage than for the same property listed as above-average

19 quality.”
20 8. In support this damage theory, Plaintiff’s attorney, Stacy Tucker, submitted her

21 own declaration which stated that she visited Farmers’ website in February 2023 and used the

22 “Get A Quote” function (not 360Value) to calculate the difference between an “above average” and

23 “premium” home. Plaintiff’s counsel reportedly obtained an “above average” estimate in the
24 amount of $686,000 and a “premium” estimate in the amount of $1,101,000. By comparing the

25 two estimates, Plaintiff calculates that there was a 55% difference between the two quality grade

26 designations using the “Get A Quote” function in February 2023. Plaintiff then speculates that there

27 should have been a similar 55% difference between the two quality grades using the 360Value

28 ///
-3-
DECLARATION OF STEVEN R. INOUYE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE’S
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AUGMENT EXPERT DESIGNATION
1 program in September 2017. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of Stacy

2 Tucker’s declaration.

3 9. Seven months ago, on June 9, 2023, Fire filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion

4 for summary judgment which argued that Plaintiff had received numerous policy disclosures

5 every year which identified Plaintiff’s home as “above average”, not “premium.” However,

6 Plaintiff never requested any changes to his policy. Plaintiff also admittedly received a

7 360Value reconstruction cost estimate from Hunsaker in September 1, 2015 with an “above

8 average” quality grade designation, but Plaintiff still made no changes. (FAC, ¶ 6.) Fire further

9 argued that Plaintiff’s damage theory is completely speculative because Plaintiff admits he is

10 unable to retroactively determine what his policy limits would have been using the 360Value

11 program in September 2017 if a different quality grade been applied. (Opposition, 23:18 –
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor

12 24:10.) Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of Fire’s opposition to Plaintiff’s
Los Angeles, CA 90071

13 motion for summary judgment against Fire.

14 10. On September 7, 2023, Judge Pardo issued an order which indicated that it was of

15 “enormous concern” to the Court that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment had cited to two

16 cases which could not be located: Bagdadi v. Go Daddy Software, Inc. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th

17 1176 and Anderson v. Continental Insurance, Co. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1659. Judge Pardo

18 ordered Plaintiff’s counsel to provide a supplemental declaration which supplied the cases within

19 two weeks. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of Judge Pardo’s order.
20 11. On October 4, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel, Stacy Tucker, submitted a supplemental

21 declaration which admitted that the cases did not exist. Instead, Plaintiff’s counsel argued that

22 she had received the cases from a retired judge at Signature Resolution, Justice Tricia Bigelow,

23 who also could not explain why the two non-existing cases were cited. Attached hereto as
24 Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of Ms. Tucker’s declaration.

25 12. Five months ago, on August 29, 2023, Plaintiff served a Demand for Disclosure

26 of Expert Witnesses and Writings. On September 28, 2023, Plaintiff identified three expert

27 witnesses, two of which were damage experts as follows: (1) Thomas Anderson was disclosed as

28 construction expert regarding the “estimated replacement cost, details of planned reconstruction,
-4-
DECLARATION OF STEVEN R. INOUYE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE’S
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AUGMENT EXPERT DESIGNATION
1 attributes of original construction and rebuilding costs for the dwelling to replace the subject

2 property at issue”; (2) Neal Bordenave was disclosed as an insurance agent expert to provide

3 “testimony relating to the damages sustained by Plaintiff in this case”; (3) David Bano was

4 disclosed as an expert on claims adjustment, underwriting and reformation standards. Despite

5 the fact that Hunsaker’s creation of a reconstruction cost estimate using the 360Value program

6 has been a key issue in this matter from the beginning, Plaintiff elected not to designate any

7 experts on the 360Value program. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of

8 Plaintiff’s expert designations.

9 13. Three months ago, on October 17, 2023, Judge Pardo issued a 14 page Tentative

10 Ruling denying Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment against Fire and Hunsaker. In his

11 tentative ruling, Judge Pardo rejected Plaintiff’s breach of contract arguments and explained:
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor

12 “Under the very terms of the contract, the full amounts due were paid. Plaintiff’s assertion that
Los Angeles, CA 90071

13 the contract was breached because Fire has failed to reform the contract is unpersuasive.” Judge

14 Pardo also disagreed with Plaintiff’s interpretation of the primary case Plaintiff relied upon to

15 support his position Major v. W. Home Ins. Co. (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1197. Attached hereto as

16 Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of Judge Pardo’s tentative ruling.

17 14. After receiving the adverse Tentative Ruling, Plaintiff’s counsel, Stacy Tucker,

18 began researching Judge Pardo’s work history and claimed she found that a partner at Judge

19 Pardo’s former law firm, David Beach, who advertises on the firm’s website that he had
20 previously worked for “The Farmers Insurance Group.”

21 15. During oral argument the following day, October 18, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel,

22 argued that Judge Pardo should be disqualified from the case pursuant to Code of Civil

23 Procedure § 170.1(a)(2)(A)(i). However, Judge Pardo advised that he had not worked on any
24 cases from Farmers® for more than ten years and that he primarily worked in Long Term Care

25 and Healthcare litigation. I also explained that Fire is a separate entity and it only issues

26 homeowners’ insurance policies, not healthcare policies. In refusing to recuse himself under

27 section 170.1, Judge Pardo confirmed that he had never worked for Fire, which is the actual

28 ///
-5-
DECLARATION OF STEVEN R. INOUYE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE’S
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AUGMENT EXPERT DESIGNATION
1 defendant in this case. At the end of the hearing, Judge Pardo took Plaintiff’s motions for

2 summary judgment under submission.

3 16. Before Judge Pardo was able to issue a final ruling on Plaintiff’s motions for

4 summary judgment, on October 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Verified Statement of Disqualification

5 on entirely new grounds. In the Verified Statement, Plaintiff disclosed - for the first time – that

6 he had engaged in ex parte communications with Judge Pardo several weeks prior in which

7 Plaintiff reportedly disclosed some facts of the case to Judge Pardo during a fundraiser.

8 Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Verified Statement of

9 Disqualification.

10 17. On October 27, 2023, Judge Pardo denied that he had done anything

11 inappropriate, but still recused himself “out of an abundance of caution” as follows: “The sole
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor

12 basis for this recusal is this judicial officer’s social conversations had with Plaintiff (Gary Koop)
Los Angeles, CA 90071

13 at a September 30, 2023, fundraising event in Santa Rosa, CA. Plaintiff did inform this judicial

14 officer in very general terms that he had lost his home during the 2017 Tubbs fire and that he had

15 rebuilt. At no time during these conversations did Plaintiff inform, nor was this judicial officer

16 aware, that Plaintiff Koop was a litigant in one of the several hundred civil matters assigned to

17 this judicial officer. Nonetheless, in an abundance of caution and in comporting with CCP

18 §170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii), I hereby recuse myself from hearing this matter for the above-stated

19 reason.” Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of Judge Pardo’s Notice of
20 Recusal.

21 18. On November 2, 2023, this matter was reassigned to Judge DeMeo for all

22 purposes. However, Judge DeMeo scheduled Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment on

23 January 31, 2024 - which was two months after the trial date. In order to allow the Court to rule
24 on Plaintiff’s motions prior to the trial, my office agreed on November 4, 2023 to continue the

25 November 17, 2023 trial date. My office also agreed that expert depositions could be taken after

26 the Court provided rulings on Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment. However, my office

27 specifically refused Plaintiff’s request to extend the expert disclosure deadline which had already

28 ///
-6-
DECLARATION OF STEVEN R. INOUYE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE’S
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AUGMENT EXPERT DESIGNATION
1 expired on September 28, 2023. Attached hereto as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of my

2 email to Stacy Tucker dated November 2, 2023.

3 19. On November 2, 2023, Judge Demeo recused himself and the matter was

4 reassigned to Judge Jane Gaskell.

5 20. Five days before the scheduled trial, on November 12, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel

6 unilaterally served an Amended Expert Disclosure which attempted to name Kevin Hromas as a

7 360Value expert for the first time. In the disclosure, Mr. Hromas is described as a “claims

8 adjuster” for various companies and is a certified insurance appraiser. He also owned a

9 construction company for sixteen years. His curriculum vitae indicates that he is an expert on

10 “claims handling, bad faith, damage analysis / quantification and adjusting procedures” and

11 “appraisals” within the insurance process. Yet, there is no evidence that Mr. Hromas has any
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor

12 experience using the 360Value program which is used by insurance agents when a policy is
Los Angeles, CA 90071

13 issued. Claims adjusters and contractors, such as Mr. Hromas, use an entirely different

14 estimating software after a loss occurs called “Xactimate.” Attached hereto as Exhibit K is a

15 true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Amended Expert Disclosure.

16 21. In her cover email to the amended disclosures, Plaintiff’s counsel explained that

17 she had used the “Get A Quote” function on Farmers’ website in order to obtain reconstruction

18 estimates to support Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment. For purposes of trial, Plaintiff’s

19 counsel claimed that she “intended to have Brian Hunsaker run those same [Get A Quote]
20 calculations on the witness stand, using that website, to demonstrate and authenticate the

21 difference.” Again, Hunsaker is an insurance agent who uses the 360Value program, not the

22 “Get A Quote” public function. Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that Farmers had

23 removed the “Get A Quote” function from its customer website sometime between February
24 2023 and November 2023. Therefore, Plaintiff’s counsel argued that Plaintiff was now required

25 to hire an expert who had access to the 360Value program in order to “run the calculations and

26 authenticate them.” Attached hereto as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of Stacy Tucker’s

27 email dated November 12, 2023.

28 ///
-7-
DECLARATION OF STEVEN R. INOUYE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE’S
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AUGMENT EXPERT DESIGNATION
1 22. On November 13, 2023, Fire objected to Plaintiff’s Amended Expert Disclosure

2 and refused to stipulate to allow the addition of Mr. Hromas.

3 23. On November 17, 2023, Judge Gaskell granted the parties’ stipulation and

4 continued the trial date from November 17, 2023 to March 29, 2024. Judge Gaskell also

5 scheduled hearing on Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment on January 31, 2024.

7 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

8 foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on this 18th day of January

9 2024, at Los Angeles, California.

11
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP

STEVEN R. INOUYE
633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor

12
Los Angeles, CA 90071

19
20

23
24

28
-8-
DECLARATION OF STEVEN R. INOUYE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE’S
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AUGMENT EXPERT DESIGNATION
EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT A
1 Glenn R. Kantor- State Bar No. 122643
E-mail: gkantor@kantorlaw.net
2 Stacy Monahan Tucker- State Bar No. 218942
E-mail: stucker@kantorlaw.net
3 KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP
19839 Nordhoff Street
4 Nortbridge, CA 91324
Telephone: (818) 886-2525
5 Facsimile: (818) 350-6272
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
GARY KOOP
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

9 COUNTY OF SONOMA
10
11 GARYKOOP, CASE NO: SCV-266944
12 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
Plaintiffs,
DAMAGES FOR
vs.
(1) BREACH OF CONTRACT
FIRE Il,JSURANCE EXCHANGE, dba (2) BREACH OF THE IMPLIED
FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP; BRIAN COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND
HUNSAKER FAIR DEALING
Defendants.
17 (3) REFOR1'1ATION

18 (4) FRAUD

19 (5) MISREPRESENTATION

20 (6) NEGLIGENCE

21 (7) VIOLATIONS OF CAL. BUS. & PROF.
CODE §17200 et. seq.
22
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
23 f-------------------'
24
Plaintiff GARY KOOP herein sets forth the allegations of his Complaint against
25
Defendants, FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, dba FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP
26
("Farmers"), and Farmers insurance agent BRIAN HUNSAKER ("Hunsaker").
27
28

1
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
I PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS

2 1. Plaintiff is informed and believe that Defendant Farmers is a corporation

3 incorporated in Nevada with its headquarters and principal place of business in Los Angeles

4 County, California. Defendant is authorized to transact and is transacting business in Sonoma

5 County, California.

6 2. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant Hunsaker is an individual insurance

7 agent, working as an independent contractor of Farmers, living in Sonoma County, California and

8 with his insurance agency located in Sonoma County, California.

9 3. At the time of the purchase of the insurance policy which is the subject of this

10 action and at all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff Gary Koop was a resident and citizen of the

11 County of Sonoma, State of California.

12 GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

4. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth

herein. ,

5. Plaintiff purchased his home in Santa Rosa, California in 2006 and obtained

insurance for it through Farmers. His original Homeowners/Fire Insurance coverage pursuant to

17 Farmers NextGeneration Homeowners Policy Number 0926772987 (hereinafter the "Policy")

18 insured his dwelling, in 2006, for $495,000.

19 6. Plaintiffs Policy was renewed annually, in September of each year. After the

20 Rocky Wildfire in July 2015, Plaintiff contacted his insurance agent, Defendant Brian Hunsaker, a

21 Farmers agent, to inquire if his Policy provided adequate insurance for a rebuild in the event of a

22 wildfire and to ask to adjust his limits if necessary to ensure replacement coverage. Hunsaker's

23 office staff assured Plaintiff that he was amply insured in the event of a disaster that required a

24 complete rebuild. Liz Evans, an office employee at Hunsaker's agency, voluntarily emailed to

25 Plaintiff on September 1, 2015 a Reconstruction Cost Estimate created by Farmers that same day.

26 The Reconstruction Cost Estimate was created by 360Value Replacement Cost Valuation, per the

27 document, and was prepared by "Farmers Conversions." The estimate specifically stated that

28 Plaintiffs home was built in 1976, was 2967 square feet, was "above average" quality, the

2
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 bathrooms were marble, the kitchen cabinets were glass, the counters were granite, the living room

2 had cathedral ceilings and a spiral metal staircase. That document informed Plaintiff that it would

3 cost him $502,000 to rebuild his home. It stated on the first page that the estimated construction

4 cost to rebuild Plaintiff's home was $169 .19 per square foot. Plaintiff reasonably relied on

5 Farmers' assurances that he was fully insured for a rebuild.

6 7. Plaintiff continued to be insured by Farmers. Between 2015 and 2017 a series of

7 wildfires repeatedly devastated the Sonoma county area, causing massive labor and materials

8 shortages for rebuilding and dramatically increasing the costs for affected families to rebuild.

9 Numerous articles were written about this fact in newspapers. This was not a new problem, similar

10 issues had been noted in southern California after numerous wildfires in the 2007 to 2010

11 timeframe. Then, too, thousands of policyholders learned too late that they were underinsured for

12 the costs to rebuild their homes after wildfires ran up of the costs of construction.

8. To address this, in 2010 the California Insurance Commissioner codified new

regulations relating to replacement cost at California Code of Regulations, title 10, section

2695.183. The insurance lobby fought the new regulations. The California Supreme Court upheld

the regulations in January 2017.

17 9. Subdivision (a) of §2695.183 requires a replacement cost estimate to account for

18 "the expenses that would reasonably be incurred to rebuild the insured structure(s) in its entirety,"

19 which must include "at least" the cost oflabor, building materials, and supplies; overhead and

20 profit; the cost of demolition and debris removal; and the cost of permits and architect's plans.

21 (Cal. Code Regs.,§ 2695.183, subd. (a){l)-(4).) The estimate must also consider "components and

22 features of the insured structure," including 11 specific items relevant to a typical rebuild, such as

23 the type of foundation and framing, the roofing and siding materials, the square footage and

24 number of stories, and the structure's geographic location. (Id., subd. (a)(5)(A)-(K).)

25 10. Per §2695.183, at least annually, the insurer must "take reasonable steps" to verify

26 that estimate methods are updated to reflect changes in the costs of rebuilding, including changes

27 in the costs oflabor, building materials, and supplies, taking into account a structure's geographic

28 location. (Cal. Code Regs.,§ 2695.183, subd. (e).)

3
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 11. Plaintiff's Policy was renewed in September 2017, with dwelling coverage of

2 $649,000. Where Farmers had insured Plaintiffs home for $495,000 in 2006, this was

3 approximately a 25% increase in 11 years.

4 12. Just weeks later, in October 2017, In October 2017, Plaintiff's home in Santa Rosa,

5 California was in the path of a large-scale wildfire, the Tubbs Wildfire, which was subsequently

6 denominated a disaster area by the Governor of California. Mr. Koop's home burned to the

7 ground. Immediately after the loss occurred, Plaintiff made a claim to Farmers and was assigned

8 claim number 3009622336-1-1.

9 13. Plaintiff is informed and believes that no review of the cost to replace his home in

10 the event of fire was conducted by Defendant prior to the renewal. No one at Farmers contacted

11 Plaintiff for information about his home or property prior to the renewal, or provided an updated

12 estimate of the cost to rebuild the home.
II- ~
....1-"'
....I ., .... 13 14. At no time prior to the fire did any Farmers agent visit Plaintiff's home, or ask
a:: I!!~
~in·e~
z,Sg..,.
~,e:,_UI
14 Plaintiff questions about the structure or the property prior to issuing him coverage.

~~,e.
o!I
a::

!~~
-t:
z ..
"E ""'"
o~~
co
15 15. Because of the lack of information on which Farmers based its valuation of the cost

~ 16 to rebuild his home, combined with the lack of increased coverage over the years, Plaintiff has not

17 been paid enough to rebuild.

18 16. Plaintiff provided all information available to him to substantiate his loss and

19 Farmers made partial payments on his claim.

20 17. During the investigation of his claim, Plaintiff learned that the cost of rebuilding

21 his home had been severely underestimated by Farmer's during the underwriting process. Further,

22 the code upgrades routinely increased by code changes over the years had not been increased,

23 despite the fact that Plaintiff's home was built in 1976 and would require extensive upgrades to

24 meet present-day codes. Nor did the estimated cost of a rebuild take into consideration the

25 enormous increase in building costs in the area after years of devastating wildfires.

26 18. Farmers paid the underinsured dwelling limits in 2017 and purported to close

27 Plaintiff's claim in 2018, though it continued to pay the Additional Living Expenses Plaintiff was

28 owed under the Policy. However, because of the enormous increase in construction demand due

4
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 to the years of wildfires in the area, Plaintiff was not able to obtain even an estimate to rebuild his

2 home until June 2019. Plaintiffs contractor estimated it would cost in excess of $2.7 million to

3 rebuild his home, including all required code upgrades. Plaintiff immediately forwarded this

4 information to Farmers. Between June and September 2019, Plaintiff asked Farmers to adjust his

5 insurance to the replacement coverage he had requested, and been assured by Farmers he had, in

6 2015. In September 2019, Farmers formally declined to provide Plaintiff the coverage to which he

7 was entitled. In October 2019, Plaintiff asked in writing for a copy of the Policy and the

8 documents on which Farmers relied in adjusting his claim. Farmers provided the Policy but

9 refused to provide claim documents, despite being legally required to provide them within 15 dayJ

10 upon request pursuant to California Insurance Code §2071.

11 19. In July 2020, Plaintiff formally asked Farmers to reform the Policy to provide the

12 replacement coverage he had requested. Farmers declined.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

AGAINST DEFENDANT FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE

FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT

20. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth

17 herein.

18 21. Plaintiff sought to obtain replacement insurance coverage for his home through

19 Farmers in the event of a fire. In September 2015, he specifically contacted Farmers and asked if

20 he needed to increase his coverage to have full replacement coverage, and Farmers assured him he

21 did not. Even if Farmers had previously not understood that Plaintiff intended to obtain full

22 replacement coverage, it was on notice after the September 2015 exchange where Plaintiff

23 specifically requested it and was assured he had it.

24 22. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Farmers took no steps to incorporate into his

25 insurance coverage the increases in the costs ofrebuilding after the multiple years of wildfires in

26 Northern California area, even after he called and asked Farmers specifically if he had adequate

27 insurance to rebuild and they assured him he did.

5
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 23. As a direct and proximate result of Farmer's improper determination regarding

2 Plaintiffs coverage, Plaintiff has been deprived of the right to obtain the benefits to which he is

3 entitled under the Policy.

4 24. Plaintiff asked Farmers to reform his Policy to accurately reflect the replacement

5 cost of his home, and Farmers declined.

6 25. All premiums due to maintain Plaintiff's coverage in full force and effect under the

7 Policy have been paid by Plaintiff. At all relevant times, Plaintiff has performed all obligations

8 under the Policy on his part to be performed.

9 26. Farmer's conduct constitutes a breach of the insurance contract between Defendant

10 and Plaintiff. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's breach of the Policy, Plaintiff has

11 suffered contractual damages under the terms and conditions of the Policy that will continue, plus

12 interest and other incidental damages and out-of-pocket expenses, all in the sum to be determined

according to proof at the time of trial.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

AGAINST DEFENDANT FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE

FOR BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND

17 FAIR DEALING

18 27. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth

19 herein.

20 28. Defendant breached its respective duty of good faith and fair dealing owed to

21 Plaintiff in the following respects:

22 (a) Unreasonably withholding benefits from Plaintiff in bad faith at a time

23 when Defendant knew Plaintiff was entitled to said benefits under the Policy;

24 (b) Unreasonably and in bad faith failing to provide a prompt and reasonable

25 explanation of the basis relied on under the terms of the Policy, in relation to the applicable

26 facts and Policy provisions, for the failure to fully pay what it should have owed for

27 Plaintiff's claim for benefits;

6
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
l (c) Unreasonably delaying payments to Plaintiff in bad faith knowing

2 Plaintiff's claim for benefits under the Policy was valid;

3 (d) Unreasonably failing to properly investigate Plaintiff's claim;

4 (e) Intentionally and unreasonably applying pertinent policy provisions to limit

5 Defendant's financial exposure and contractual obligations and to maximize profits;

6 (f) Failing to comply with Cal. Ins. Reg. §2695.183;

7 (g) Declining to implement Plaintiff's request to reform the Policy to reflect the

8 insurance amounts the Policy would have contained if Farmers' had complied with

9 §2695.183;

10 (h) Refusing to comply with a written request made by Plaintiff for his claims

11 related documents, a request with which Farmers was required to comply within 15 days

12 under Cal. Ins. Code. §2071;

and,

(i) Unreasonably compelling Plaintiff to institute litigation to recover amounts

due under the Policy to further discourage Plaintiff from pursuing his full policy benefits.

29. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon allege that Defendant has breached

17 its duties of good faith and fair dealing owed to Plaintiff by other acts or omissions of which

18 Plaintiff is presently unaware. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint at such time as Plaintiff

19 discovers these other acts or omissions.

20 30.Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant Farmers has a pattern and practice of

21 underinsuring homes to increase its competitiveness in the insurance market by offering lower

22 premiums, and then avoiding higher rebuild obligations in the event of a disaster, leaving its

23 insureds unable to replace their homes.

24 31. As a proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendant, Plaintiff has suffered

25 and will continue to suffer in the future, damages under the Policy, plus interest, for a total amount

26 to be shown at the time of trial.

7
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 32. As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendant, Plaintiff has

2 suffered mental and emotional distress, and other incidental damages and out-of-pocket expenses,

3 all to Plaintiffs general damage in a sum to be determined at the time of trial.

4 33. As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendant, Plaintiff was

5 compelled to retain legal counsel to obtain the benefits due under the Policy. Therefore, Defendant

6 is liable to Plaintiff for those attorneys' fees reasonably necessary and incurred by Plaintiff to

7 obtain Policy benefits in a sum to be determined at the time of trial.

8 34. Defendant's conduct described herein was intended by Defendant to cause injury to

9 Plaintiff, was despicable conduct carried on by Defendant with a willful and conscious disregard

10 of the rights of Plaintiff, subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of

11 their rights, and was an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact

12 known to Defendant with the intention to deprive Plaintiff of property and/or legal rights or to

otherwise cause injury, such as to constitute malice, oppression, or fraud under California Civil

Code § 3294, thereby entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish or

set an example of Defendant.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

17 AGAINST DEFENDANT FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE

18 FOR REFORMATION

19 35. All preceding paragraphs are inco

Case Info

Judge

DeMeo, Bradford Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

January 19, 2024

Case Filing Date

August 24, 2020

County

Parties

Finch, Albert Morris, III Attorney for the Defendant
Fire Insurance Exchange, dba Farmers Insurance Group Defendant
Hunsaker, Brian Defendant
Kantor, Glenn Robert Attorney for the Plaintiff
Koop, Gary Plaintiff
Schwartz, Peter Attorney for the Defendant
Christopher Wagner Attorneys for Defendants
David Jones Attorneys for Defendants
Steven Inouye Attorneys for Defendants
Victoria Hirsch Attorneys for Defendants
Jason Deng Attorneys for Defendants
Margaret Drugan Attorneys for Defendants
Stacy Monahan Attorney
Stacy Tucker Attorney
Lisa Kantor Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Steven Soltman Attorney
Alan Jampol Attorneys for Defendants
Paul Donsbach Attorneys for Defendants
Robert Yap Attorneys for Defendants
Stefanie Schiff Attorneys for Defendants
Barry Zoller Attorneys for Defendants
Margret Parke Attorneys for Defendants
Julia Donoho Attorney
Reginaldo Villarreal Attorney
Enrique Adler Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

No Value: Koop vs Fire Insurance Exchange, dba Farmers Insurance Group

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties