radis1_240502142024_0001 May 02, 2024

On May 02, 2024 a No Value was filed in the District Court of Santa Barbara County.

Preview
EVANGELINE F. GROSSMAN State BarNo.176014
e gro s sman @, e fg I awyer'. co m
2 TONNA K. FAXON State Bar No. 237605
tfaxon(E efelawyer. co m
3 EVANGELINE FISHER GROSSMAN LAW
330 North Indian Hill Boulevard
4 Claremont, Califomia 9l7 II
Telephone: (909)626-1934
5 Facsimile: (909)626-1900
6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Patrick Radis and Maire Radis

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 FOR THE COIINTY OF SANTA BARBARA

l1 PATRICK RADIS and MAIRE RADIS, Case No.

12 Plaintiffs,
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY
LIli(Jj
13 V TRIAL
14 CALIFORNIA FAIR PLAN ASSOCIATION; 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT
andDOES 1 to 10, Inclusive,
1s

Defendants 2. BREACH OF THE IMPLIED
t6 COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND
FAIR DEALING
1l

18
3. FINANCIAL ELDER AND
DEPENDENT PERSON ABUSE
19

21
I. THE PARTIES
22 1. The Plaintiffs, Patrick and Maire Radis ("Plaintiffs"), are and at all relevant times

were residents of the city of Santa Barbara, the County of Santa Barbara, and the State of
24 California.
25 2. The Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and allege that defendant California Fair Plan
26 Association ("Fair Plan") is authorized to transact business and is transacting the business of
21 insurance in the State of Califomia as a syndicated fue insurance pool established to assure the
28 availability of basic properly insurance to people who own insurable property in the State of
1

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Califomia.

2 3. The true names or capacities, whether individual or colporation associated or

J otherwise, of Defendant, DOES I through 10 are unknown to the Plaintiffs, who, therefore,

4 designate these Defendants by these fictitious names. Each of the Defendants sued; therefore, as a

5 DOE, it is legally responsible in some manner for the events and happenings referred to and

6 proximately caused the injuries suffered by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs will amend this complaint

1 as necessary to allege DOE Defendants' identities when the same becomes known to the Plaintiffs

8 4. The Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and allege that at allrelevant times, each of the

9 Defendants was the agent and employee of each of the remaining Defendants, and in their own

10 actions and inactions alleged were within the course and scope of such agency and employment.

l1 II. JURISDICTION
12 5. Jurisdiction is proper because the controversy exceeds this Courl's jurisdictional

13 mlnlmum.

14 III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1s 6. The Radis home is 897 Toro Canyon Road, Santa Barbara, California 93108. The

I6 Thomas Fire, which consumed over 280,000 acres between December 4,2017 , and lanuary 12,

I7 201 8, burned portions of the Radis properly. However, due to the valiant efforts of firefighters,

t8 their home survived. News stations filmed the impending fire and its aftermath from the Radis

19 home because it backed up on the wildlands.

20 7. The Thomas fire left behind native vegetation on the open hillsides above, and

2l landscaping on the property scorched and burned. The vegetation has never fully recovered,

22 leaving the area lulnerable to heavy rains, water flows and mudslides

./.J 8. On January 9,2023, heavy water, flood, mudflows, and mudslides destroyed the

24 Propane Tank and other essentialutilities that service the Radis home. To this day, Mr. and Mrs.
25 Radis have lived in their home without heat because FAIR Plan denied their insurance claim, and

26 they have been unable to replace their Propane Tank and utility systems.

27 9. Mr. Radis is a terminally ill, disabled senior cttizen with barely enough energy to

28 speak. He has spent his remaining time under these oppressive conditions, with heavy rains and

2
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FORJURY TRIAL
temperatures in the winter of 2023 to 2024 dropping below 40 degrees. The home has been frigid.

2 10. Mr. and Mrs. Radis did not have to live like this. On January 4,2023, California

J Insurance Commissioner Richard Lara issued a Notice to all insurance companies regarding

4 "Coverage of Flood, Mudslide, and Earlh Movement Claims Relating to Wild Fires."1 The Notice

5 is attached for full review; however, it reads in part:"

6 "The California Deparlment of Insurance (Department) is aware that homeowners and

7 certain commercial property insurance policies may exclude losses caused by mudflow, debrief

8 slow, mudslide, landslide, or other similar events. However, under the "efficient proximate cause"

9 doctrine established by the Insurance Code and articulated by California courts, these exclusions are

10 not enforceable if the facts establish that the wildfire was the efficient proximate cause of the

1t establish that the wildfire (a covered peril) was the efficient proximate cause of the subsequent

t2 flooding, mudflow, debris flow, mudslide, landslide, or other similar events."

13 "Insurance Code & 530 states:"

14 "An insurer is liable for a loss of which a peril insured against was the proximate cause,

15 although a peril not contemplated by the contract may have been a remote cause of the loss; but he

16 is not liable for a loss of which the peril insured against was only a remote cause."

I7 "Insutance code section 530 sets forth the efficient proximate cause doctrine, an interpretive

18 rule for first-party insurance disputes. The Califomia Supreme Court and other California Appellate

19 Courts have stated that efficient proximate cause doctrine is the "preferred method for resolving first

20 party insurance disputes involving losses caused by multiple risks or perils, at least one of which is

21 covered by insurance and one of which is not." Julian v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 35 Cal.4th

22 I47 ,7 53 (2005)."

23 "Based upon the Insurance Code provision and established case law described above,

24 insurance companies should not deny these claims before undertaking a diligent investigation

25 regarding the cause of loss and carefully considering the facts."

26 11. The Fair Plan policy, with a premium of $4,094 ayear, is an HO3 policy that

1
28 January 4,2023, Notice of California Insurance Comissioner Ricardo Lara attached as Exhibit A
3
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 provides coverage for fire only. Fair Plan policies are considered a "policy of last resolt" and are

2 purchased by homeowners in fire areas who are unable to obtain other homeowner's insurance for

J the peril of fire. Because Fair Plan insurance provides limited coverage, homeowners generally also

4 purchase what is called a"wrap" policy that provides coverage for all perils other than fir'e.
5 12. Mr. and Mrs. Radis were also insuled by Pacific Specialty under a "wrap" policy,
6 and they made a claim for the loss under it too. Pacific Specialty adjusted the claim but was
7 ultimately not responsible as mudslides were not insuted, and there was no efficient proximate

8 cause situation given that the fire was not a covered peril. During its investigation, however, Pacific

9 Specialty's engineer, Envista, determined that the "mud-flow included fragments of chan ed wood,

10 consistent with the mudslides having occured in the vicinity of the wildfire. Fufther, in the
il dlainage channel south of the residence, scorched bark was observed on two of the trees (the trees

12 were still living), which was another indicator of the proximity of the fire to the

13 residence/property." In its February 9,2023, denial letter Pacirfic Specialty concludes, "Envista

t4 found that the Thomas Fire could have had a contributing factor on the mudslide also. We regret to

15 inform you that the policy does not provide coverage for damage caused by rnudslide, earth

16 movement, settling, nor fire."

17 13. Although Pacific Specialty acknowledged that the mudslide was caused by the

18 Thomas fire, Fair Plan would not. Fair Plan hired Rimkus Engineering to bolster its position. Based

t9 on Google Earth photos, Rimkus opined in its April 77,2023, report that the Thomas fire did not

20 reach the hillsides above the Radis property or the property itself, or, alternatively, vegetation had

21 recovered to the extent that the fire was not the efficient proximate cause of the mudslide.

22 14. In its May 3,2023, denial letter Fair Plan wrote, "We have completed our

23 investigation into the above loss. It was repofied that due to recent torrential rains, a mudslide

24 occured damaging your separate structure, propane tank and landscaping around your property.
25 Your policy covers damage to insured properly caused by specifically named causes of loss. The

26 predominant cause of loss is water. Unfortunately, the loss is not covered under our policy. An

21 engineer was obtained to determine the cause of the mudslide. It was found that the water driven

28 mudslide was caused by inadequate stormwater management and deferred storm runoff."

4
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
2 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF CONTRACT
3 (Against FAIR PLAN and DOES I through 10)
4 15. The Plaintiffs refer to all preceding paragraphs and fully incorporate them in this

5 cause ofaction.

6 16. At all material times herein, the Plaintiffs had a policy of insurance for their home
7 through the Fair Plan. The contract, Policy Number CFP 2628984 02, was in effect at all relevant

8 times, including on the date of loss (the "Policy"). A true and accurate copy of the Policy is

9 attached as Exhibit B and is incorporated herein in its entirety.

10 17. According to the Policy contract's terms, Fair Plan agreed to provide coverage to

ll Plaintiffs for loss or damage to their property arising from a covered loss. In the event of a fire loss,
t2 the policy covers the dwelling and "if not otherwise covered in this policy, building equipment and

13 outdoor equipment used for the service of and located on the Described Location."

14 18. The Plaintiffs fulfilled all of their obligations under the contract. They paid the

15 premiums and performed or substantially performed the promises they made undel the contract,

16 including promptly notifying Fair Plan of the loss. In the altemative, any obligation or requirement

I7 they may have failed to fulfill is immaterial to Fair Plan's decision to enter into the contract and to

18 Fair Plan's claims-handling conduct.

t9 19. The Fair Plan breached its duties under the policy by failing to provide the promised

20 insurance coverage for the Plaintiffs' loss. The Plaintiffs suffered damages as a direct and

21 proximate result of the Fair Plan's breach. In addition to being denied the Policy's benefits after a

22 loss, the Plaintiffs were forced to retain counsel to obtain the policy benefits owed by Fair Plan.

23 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF COVENANT OF
24 GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
25 (Against FAIR PLAN and DOES 1 through 10)

26 20. The Plaintiffs refer to all preceding paragraphs and fully incorporate them in this

2l cause ofaction.

28 21 . In every insurance policy, there exists an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing

5
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
that the insurance company will not do anything to injure the rights of the insured to receive the

2 benefits of the policy. Because peace of mind and security are principal benefits for Plaintiffs under

J the Policy, the Fair Plan owed special obligations to the Plaintiffs. Their claim should have been

4 promptly processed, thoroughly investigated, and paid in full. Fair Plan failed to do so.

5 22. Fair Plan breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing owed to Plaintiffs, including

6 but not limited to the following respects:

1 a. Unreasonably and in bad faith, placed its own financial interests ahead of its

8 insured in violation of California's statutory, regulatory, and common law;

9 b. Unreasonably and in bad faith failed to give at least as much

10 consideration to the interests of its insured as it gave its own interests;

II c. Unreasonably and in bad faith refused payment of additional living expenses;

12 d. Unreasonably and in bad faith failed to retain independent experts to assist in

13 the fair, reasonable, objective, and prompt investigation of the claim;

t4 e. Unreasonably and in bad faith withheld payment of sums due and owing

15 Plaintiff;
t6 f. Unreasonably and in bad faith failed to investigate reasonably and

I1 process Plaintiffls claim for benefits;

18 g, Unreasonably and in bad faith failed to investigate the claim objectively;

19 h, Unreasonably and in bad faith failed to investigate the claim thoroughly;

20 i. Unreasonably and in bad faith ignored evidence supporling coverage;

21 j. Unreasonably and in bad faith failed to search diligently for

22 evidence that supported payment of the claim;

ZJ k, Unreasonably and in bad faith failed to provide all claim-related documents
.\A
within fifteen days of request by Plaintiffs under Cal. Ins. Code $2071;

25 l. Unreasonably and in bad faith requiring a first-par1y claimant or beneficiary

26 to submit duplicative proofs of claim where coverage may exist pursuant to

21 10 C.C.R. $$ 2695.7(d) and 269s.9(d);

6
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
m. Unreasonably and in bad faith failing to affirm or deny coverage in whole or

2 in part in violation of l0 C.C.R . g 2695.4;

J n. Unreasonably and in bad faith delayed and/or denied Plaintiffs' claim without

4 a genuine dispute between the parties;

5 o. Unreasonably and in bad faith failed to refrain from injuring Plaintiffs' right

6 to receive the benefits of the Policy, and

7 p. Unreasonably and in bad fuith compelled Plaintiffs to institute litigation to

8 recover amounts due under the Policy.

9 23. Fair Plan's pattern of unfair practices constitutes institutional bad faith and evidences

10 a conscious course of wrongful conduct that is firmly grounded in the established company policy
11 of Fair Plan.

12 24. The Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and allege that Fair Plan committed institutional

13 bad faith by other acts and omissions of which they are unaware but will be shown according to

I4 proof at trial.

15 25. The Defendant's conduct was undertaken or approved by its officers or managing

16 agents responsible for claims supervision, operations, communications, and decisions. This

t1 unreasonable conduct was undeftaken on behalf of the Defendant.

18 26. The Defendant had advanced knowledge of the actions and conduct of said

t9 individuals, and the conduct was ratified, authodzed, and approved by the Defendant, including

20 managing agents whose precise identities are unknown to the Plaintiffs at this time and therefore

21 identified and designated as Does I through 10.

22 21. As a further proximate result of the Defendant's unreasonable conduct, the Plaintiffs

23 were compelled to retain legal counsel to obtain the benefits due under the Policy. Defendant is

24 liable to Plaintiffs for attomey fees, witness fees, and litigation costs reasonably necessary and

25 incurred by him to obtain the Policy's benefits.

26 28. As a further proximate result of Fair Plan's unreasonable conduct, Plaintiffs suffered
27 incidental damages flowing from Fair Plan's breach of contract, including (but not limited to)

28 emotional distress. The Plaintiffs suffered mental distress from the anxiety arising from the
'l
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FORJURY TRIAL
financial deprivation traceable directly to Fair Plan's delay in payment of his claim. In delaying

2 insurance benefits due to the Plaintiffs, Fail Plan substantially invaded the Plaintiffs' personal

J property interest.

4 29. Fair Plan acted with oppression, malice, andlor fraud in denying Plaintiffs' claim

5 under California Civil Code S 3294. Fair Plan intended for its conduct to cause injury to the

6 Plaintiffs; Fair Plan engaged in despicable conduct carried out with a willful and conscious

7 disregard for their rights. Fair Plan's conduct constituted an intentional misrepresentation, deceit,

8 and concealment of material facts known to Fair Plan with the intent to deprive Plaintiffs of
9 propefty, legal rights, andlor cause othel injury. Thus, Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages in

l0 an amount appropriate to punish or set an example of Fair Plan and deter future similar conduct.

1l THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
12 FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE _ ABUSE OF DEPENDENT ADULT _ WELFARE AND
13 . JNSTITUTIONS CODE
l4 (Against FAIR PLAN and DOES I through 10)
15 30. The Plaintiff refers to all preceding paragraphs and fully incorporates them in this

16 cause ofaction.
t7 31. Mr. Radis is an "elder" as defined in Welfare and Instifutions Code section 15610.27,
18 as he is 65 years old. During the time period complained of herein, Mr. Radis was also a

19 wlnerable person and "dependent adult" in that he is and was terminally ill and disabled as defined

20 in Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.23, because he has physical limitations that restrict

21 his ability to carry out normal activities or to protect his rights.

22 32. California Welfare and Institutions Code (the "Abuse Act") is intended "to protect a

z5 particularly wlnerable portion of the population from gross mistreatment in the form of abuse and

24 custodial neglect" Delaneyv. Baker (1999) 20 Ca|.4th23,33.

25 33. The Abuse Act originally focused on reporting abuse and neglect (Ibid.) However,

26 later amendments shifted the focus to private, civil enforcement, which permits individuals to

27 pursue claims in litigation for financial elder abuse (Ibid.)

28 34. Abuse of an elder or a dependent adult is defined under the Abuse Act as "fp]hysical

8
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
abuse, neglect, financial abuse, abandonment, isolation, abduction, or other treatment with resulting
2 physical harm or pain or mental suffering" ($ 15610.07(a)) or "[t]he deprivation by a care

3 custodian of goods or services that ale necessary to avoid physical harm or mental suffering" ($

4 1 s6 r 0.07(b)).

5 35. The Abuse Act also prohibits the financial abuse of an elder; "financial abuse" occurs

6 when a person or entity "takes, secretes, appropriates, or retains real or personal property of an

7 elder or dependent adult to a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both." WELF. & INST.

8 coDE $ 1s610.30.
9 36. "Personal ptoperty" includes money, goods, chattels, things in action, and evidence

10 of debt. CAL. CIV. CODE $ 14. Insurance policy proceeds constifute "peLsonal propefty" under

l1 the Abuse Act.

12 37. A wrongful use is deemed to have occured when, among other things, a person or

13 entity "takes, secretes, appropriates, or retains real or personal property ofan elder or dependent

t4 adult to a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both" in bad faith. CAL. CIV. CODE $ 14.

15 38. Mr. Radis has vested personalproperly rights to money and benefits triggered under
t6 the Policy once their insured loss occured, as well as to their home and personal belongings.

n 39. Defendant knew or reasonably should have known that its conduct was likely to be

18 hatmful to Plaintiff. Defendant knew Plaintiff s age from the underwriting information collected

t9 and maintained by Fair Plan. Defendant was advised of Plaintiff s terminal illness and dependent
20 status. Still, Defendant nonetheless retained Plaintiff s property with the intent to deprive him of
21 money and benefits, and as long as Defendant continues to do so, Defendant is committing

22 unlawful financial abuse under the Abuse Act. All of the aforementioned acts were done with an
23 intent to defraud, by undue influence, in a wrongful manner, and with other improper conduct.

24 40. By failing, refusing, and neglecting to pay funds owed under the Policy (and

25 continuing to do so as of the date of the filing of this Complaint), Defendant committed financial

26 elder and dependent abuse by withholding or misappropriating funds from which Plaintiff was

27 entitled to benefit. All of the aforementioned acts were done with an intent to defraud bv undue
28 influence, in a wrongful manner, and with other improper conduct.

9
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
41. Defendant knew or reasonably should have known that its conduct was likely

2 harmful to Plaintiff. Still, Defendant retained insurance benefits due and owing to Plaintiff,

J intending to deprive Flaintiff of money and benefits, constituting financial abuse. All of the

4 aforementioned acts were done with an intent to defraud, by undue influence, in a wrongful

5 manner, and with other improper conduct.

6 42. Fair PIan knowingly failed to provide Policy benefits sufficient to restore the subject

1 propefiy to its pre-loss condition on a timely basis. It also failed to pay adequate loss of use

8 benefits to provide housing and care needed by Plaintiff, causing unnecessary hardship, distress,

9 and money expenditure due to Defendant's conduct. All of the aforementioned acts were done with
10 an intent to defraud, by undue influence, in a wrongful manner, and with other improper conduct.

n 43. Fair Plan committed financial elder and dependent abuse when it (a) took Policy

12 premiums from Plaintiff with no intent of fully paying benefits promised under the Policy; (b) Fair

13 Plan intentionally under-scoped and under-adjusted the loss (or denied the loss altogether) and

14 continues to do so; (c) Fair Plan wrongfully retained policy benefits by delaying and denying

l5 payment to the Plaintiff and paid less than what was due and owing to the Plaintiff, and continues

T6 to do so; and (d) Fair Plan did so with the explicit knowledge that the delayed benefits paid were

17 insufficient and inadequate to restore Plaintiff s home to its pre-loss condition. A11 of the

i8 aforementioned acts were done with an intent to defraud, by undue influence, in a wrongful

19 manner, and with other improper conduct.

20 44. Defendant was specifically advised of Plaintifls age and health condition. The

21 Defendant knew or should have known that its conduct was directe d at an elder and a dependent

22 and was likely to harm the Plaintiff.

z3 45. Defendant deliberately disregarded the high degree of probability that its conduct

24 would injure Plaintiff in that Plaintiff was not given sufficient insurance benefits to pay to have his

25 home repaired and returned to its pre-loss condition.

26 46. Defendant's conduct caused Plaintiff to suffer because its conduct was a substantial

21 factor in causing harm to Plaintiff, causing an uncovered loss andlor the ability to use and enjoy his

28 property and a loss of assets essential for Plaintiff s health and welfare.

10
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
41. Plaintiff is substantially more vulnerable than other members of the public to

2 Defendant's conduct because of his age and disability, and he suffered substantialphysical,

J emotional, and economic damage resulting from Defendant's conduct.

4 48. Defendant is guilty of recklessness, oppression, fraud, andlor malice in committing

5 financial elder abuse.

6 49. The Defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in causing the Plaintiffls harm,

1 including pain, suffering, and emotional distress.

8 50. Because Defendant violated the Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.30,

9 Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys'fees and costs pursuant to section 15657.5(a).

10 51 . In addition to punitive damages under Cal. Civ. Code g 3294, Cal. Civ. Code g 3345
1t allows for treble damages, to wliich Plaintiff is entitled.

12 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
13 Plaintiffs request that the Court enter judgnient as follows:

14 First Cause of Action - Breach of Contract

I5 l. Damages under the policy, plus interest, including prejudgment interest and other

t6 economic and consequential damages, in an amount to be determined according to proof at the time

17 of trial;

18 2. Costs of suit incuned herein; and

t9 3. Other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

20 Second Cause of Action - Breach of the Dufy of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

2T 4. Damages for wrongful denial and failure to provide benefits under the Policy, plus

22 interest, including prejudgment interest, in a sum to be determined at the time of trial;

-/.3 5. Attorney's fees, witness fees, and costs of litigation incurred by Plaintiffs to
n/
obtain policy benefits in an amount to be determined attrial;

25 6. Economic and consequential damages arising out of the Defendant's unreasonable

26 failure to provide benefits under the policy;

27 7. General damages for mental and emotional distress;

l1
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FORJURY TRIAL
8. Punitive and exemplary damages in an amount appropriate to punish or set an

2 example of the defendant;

J 9. Costs of suit incuned herein;

4 10. Other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

5 Third Cause of Action -Financial Elder and Dependent Person Abuse
6 I1. Economic and consequential damages;

1 12. General damages for mental and emotional distress and other incidental damages;

8 13. Punitive and exemplary damages in an amount appropriate to punish or set an
o example;

10 14. Treble damages pursuant to California Civil Code g3345;
11 15. Costs of suit incuned herein; and
12 16. Other relief as the Courl deems just and proper.
13 Dated: May 2,2024 EVANGELINE FISHER GROSSMAN LAw
l4
By:
t5
GELINE GROSSMAN
16 TONNA K. F N
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
I7

18
JURY DEMAND
19
Plaintiffs hereby demand atrial by jury.
20

21
Dated: May 2,2024 EVAN ELINE FISHER GROSSMAN LAW
22

23 By:
ANG FISHER GROSSMAN
24
TONNA K N
25
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

t2
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
EXHIBIT A
r{h
YOUR INSURANCE BROKER
ALAIN J. WELTY
5266 HOLLISTER AVE #225
725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3900
SANTA BARBARA, CA 931,11
CALI FORN lA LosAnseles, CA90017
PHONE NUMBER (805) 967-8540
FAIR
pRopERry
PLAN
rNsuRANcE
(8oo) 33e-4oee
www.cfpnet,com

Questions about your
I nsu rance Renewal Offer?

Follow these simple steps to ensure you have the coverage you need W
when you need it most.

"/ REVIEW YOUR POLICY
Do you have the right amount and type of insurance in case of a loss? Selecting the
amount and type of insurance coverage appropriate for your needs is YOUR
responsibility.
Ask your Broker to help guide you in making these selections

,/ KNOW WHAT COVERAGE YOUR FAIR PLAN POLICY PROVIDES
lf you cannot get insurance with another company, consider purchasing a Difference
in Conditions (DlC) policy that provides important coverages not available in your
FAIR Plan policy such as water damage, theft and liability coverage.
SEE THE INSURANCE COMPARISON CHART ON THE REVERSE. -
Contact your Broker for more information -

\A/ater Damage
FAIR Plan Fire Difference
Dwelling lnternal Explosion Thett in Conditions
Policy Windstorm Policy (DlC)
Liability

This ilustration is intended as an overview only. Read the applicable forms for complete terms, conditions and exclusions.

,/ SHOP AROUND
The insurance marketplace changes regularly so the FAIR Plan may not be your only
option. DIC policy prices can vary greatly between companies.
Contact your Broker to see if other cover&ge is available

PATRICK RADIS
897 TORO CANYON RD DREN
SANTABARBARA CA93108
c# 1 (6486520.691 522s.8460655) continued on reverse side
Insured Copy CFP-R3a (09/2019)
California FAIR Plan Association
INSURANCE POLICY COMPARISON CFP DWELLING POLICY TO ISO HO.3
IMPORTANT NOTICE
This chart summarizes some of the significant differences between the coverage provided by the FAIR Plan's basic dwelling
policy and the coverage provided by insurance advisory organization lnsurance Service Office, lnc. (lSO) more comprehensive
California homeowners (HO-3) policy form. You should consider purchasing a companion policy, commonly known as a
Difference in Conditions (DlC) policy to supplement what the FAIR Plan policy provides. For a complete, specific understanding
of all of the similarities and differences between the FAIR Plan dwelling policy and the insurance available in the standard
market, you should consult with a licensed insurance broker. ln all cases, the specific language of the policy shall constitute
the terms and conditions of the coverage provided. THls cHART ls NoT ALL-INcLUslvE.

DWELLING
All physical loss unless specifically excluded (including waterdamage) no coverage
Fire or Lightning
Smoke
lnternal Explosion
Extended Coverage (windstorm or hail, explosion, riot, aircraft, vehicles) Optional
Vandalism or Malicious Mischief Optional
CONTENTS
Fire or Lightning
Smoke
lnternal Explosion
Extended Coverage (windstorm or hail, explosion, riot, aircraft, vehicles Optional
Vandalism or Malicious Mischief Optional
Theft no coverage
Falling Objects no coverage
Weight of lce, Snow or Sleet no coverage

Accidental Discharge or Overflow of Water or Steam no coverage
Freezing no coverage
Sudden Accidental Damage from Artificially Generated Electrical Current no coverage
LIABILITY COVERAGES
Personal Liability no coverage
Medical Payments to Others no coverage
Damage to Property of Others no coverage $1,000 Limit

OTHER COVERAG LIMITSAND CONDITIONS allinclusive)

Replacement Cost Optional
Use up to 10% of Dwelling Limit (reduces dwelling 1Q% of Dwelling Limit (does not reduce
Other Structures limit), or Optional - you may buy additional Other Dwelling Limit, and you may buy
Structures coverage additional Other Structures coverage)
Additional Living Expense no coverage
Use up to 10% of Dwelling Limit (reduces dwelling
Fair Rental Value limit), or Optional- you may buy up to 50% of Dwelling
Limit in additional Fair Rental Value coverage

Optional - you may buy up to 10% of Dwelling Limit in 10% of Dwelling Limit (does not reduce
Ordinance or Law Dwelling Limit, and you may buy
Ordinance or Law Coverage
additional Ordinance or Law coverage)
lncluded in Limit of Liability applying to damaged
lncluded in Limit of Liability applying
property (reduces applicable limit) or Optional- you
Debris Removal to damaged property, but adds 5% to
may buy up to 5% of Dwelling, Other Structures and that limit, if necessary, fcr debris
Personal Property Combined Limits in additional removal
Debris Removal coverage
A)
California FAIR Plan Association
DWELLING INSURANCE POLICY DECLARATIONS

725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3900 TRANSACTION TypE Dwellinq - Renewal Offer
CALI FORN;4 LosAngeles, CA 90017
FAIR
pRopERry
PLAN (8oo) 33e-4oee
www.cfpnet.com
YOUR INSURANCE BROKER
rNsuRANcE ALAIN J. WELTY
5266 HOLLISTER AVE #225
DATE ISSUED 12t20t2021 SANTA BARBARA, CA 931 1 1
POLICY NUMBER cFP 2628984 02 PHONE NUMBER (805) 967-8540
POLICY PERIOD 0210912022 ro 0210912023
12:01 a.m. at the property location

INSURED NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS PROPERTY LOCATION
PATRICK RADIS 897 TORO CANYON RD
MAIRE RADIS SANTA BARBARA, CA 93108
897 TORO CANYON RD
SANTA BARBARA, CA 93108

IMPORTANT NOTICE TO INSURED
The FAIR Plan does not estimate the cost to rebuild your home, or the cost of labor and materials in your (or any other)
area, or determine the appropriateness of the coverage you select. lnstead, those are your responsibilities. However,
we are required by law to tell you that, "The limit of liability for this structure (Coverage A) is based on an estimate of the
cost to rebuild your home, including an approximate cost for labor and materials in your area, and specific information
that you have provided about your home".

RATING INFORMATION
YEAR BUILT OCCUPANCY # OF UNITS CONSTRUCTION TYPE DEDUCTIBLE
1960 owNER 1 FRAME $5000
COVERAGE AND PREMIUM INFORMATION
ln case of loss we cover only that paft of the loss which exceeds the deductible shown. We provide only those coverages,
endorsements and perils shown below as ( \/ ). These are brief summary descriptions; please read the eniire
policy for details. Ask your broker for assistance if you wish to obtain information about coverages you have not purchased

COVERAGES, LIMITS, PERILS AND PREMIUMS
SELECTED COVERAGES LIMITS PERILS INSURED AGAINST PREMIUM

t"..* A - Dwelling $ 1,200,000
Fire or Lightning, lnternal Explosion $ 3,962
stl
c-.-J B - Other Structures $ 0 and Smoke Damage

K,/'l - Personal Property $ ::
'{u
/: Extended Coverages
y*"")
C 300,000 $ 109
: /t
D - Fair Rental Value $ 0 ivv Vandalism or Malicious Mischief $ ZJ
:" *i
Ordinance or Law Coverage $ 0

g,*$ Debris Removal (additional) Q
0
lAnnual Premium $ 4,094

t Extended Dwell ing Coverage $ 0
:-\

HIS IS NOT A BILL
E Dwelling Replacement Cost NOT INCLUDED
"d-
---t
lnflation Guard
You will be sent a bill approximately 30
NOT INCLUDED
days prior to the renewal effective date
Personal Property Replacement Cost
ffij" INCLUDED
THIS POLICY DOES NOT INCLUDE
Fe nces $ 0
t",,*.J
'"1
BUILDING CODE UPGRADE COVERAGE
1S Permitted lncidental Occupancy $ 0 (wHrcH wE GALL ORDTNANCE OR LAW
I Plants, Shrubs and Trees covERAGE)
$ 0

s*\ Outdoor Radio and TV Equipment $ 0
$B
ll. Awn ings $ 0

\ Signs $ 0
Y**2 ments, Alterations and Additions $ 0

CFP 2628984 02 red cFP-008A(01/2021 )
READ YOUR INSURANCE POLICY
Selecting the amount and type ofinsurance coverage appropriate for your needs is your responsibility.

F o R MS AN D EN DO RS EME NTS A P PL CA B L E TO T H S PO L CY N U MB E R cFP 2628984 02
CFP 00 01 (0712017) Dwelling Property Policy Form, CFP0001F (01t2021) Home Sharing Endorsement, CFp0002
(0a12020) Amendatory Endorsement, CFP0001 E (0412019) Amendatory Endorsement, DF438 (06t2012) Lenders Loss
Payable Endorsement

MORTGAGEE/LOSS PAYEES
Subiect to the provisions of the loss payable clauses attached hereto, loss, if any, on dwelling (and other structures, if applicable)
sha[l be payable to:
1ST MORTGAGEE 2ND MORTGAGEE
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. #936 WELLS FARGO BANK NA ISAOA
ITS SUCCESSORS AND/OR ASSIGNS PO BOX 8546
P.O. BOX 100515 SPRINGFIELD, OH 4550,1 -8546
FLORENCE, SC 29502-0515 LOAN NUMBER 1 17 1 1704672941998
LOAN NUMBER 0361488885 -

THESE DECLARATIONS WITH FORMS AND ENDORSEMENTS LISTED ABOVE ARE YOUR INSURANCE POLICY

MESSAGE BOARD
.,/ This policy is a contract between us and the Named lnsured(s) and any loss payees identified on this
Declarations Page. This policy does not provide coverage to any person or entiiy not named here.

I a h aB 38'+ 0 e 0 0 r{ 01 q 0 0 [ 0 th 37h00a Ie a0a0 a 10 e0 3 a 0ae0 0000B000 ?
PRIVACY NOTICE
How We Collect, Use, Disclose and Protect Your Personal lnformation
When you apply for insurance with the California FAIR Plan Association (the FAIR Plan), you entrust us with some
personal information about yourself. This notice briefly describes our practices regarding your personal information,
including what information we gather, how we protect it, and how you can help ensure its accuracy.

How We Collect lnformation
ln order that we may properly issue or modify a policy of insurance, which requires us to evaluate and rate the risk,
relevant information must be obtained. ln most cases, applications for insurance, submitted to us on your behalf
either by you or your insurance broker, provide the information we need to decide whether or n

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

No Value: 15210904

Preview

Case Info

Parties

No Value: 15210904

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties