ReportWire

Tag: dispute

  • Wildfire victims in limbo as fight with insurers hits another snag

    [ad_1]

    After receiving more than 1,000 complaints from Jan. 7 fire victims about how insurers are handling their claims, state regulators are considering referring hundreds of the cases to mediation — a little used practice that some consumer advocates fear could hurt policyholders.

    The Department of Insurance has been bombarded with complaints from property owners since the Palisades and Eaton fires destroyed more than 16,000 structures and damaged more than 2,000 others, causing up to $45 billion in insured damages by one estimate.

    Fire victims say they have experienced slow responses from insurance company claims handlers, been rotated to multiple adjusters, denied hygienic testing for toxic chemicals and given lowball offers.

    The department has encouraged fire victims unhappy with how their claims are being managed to file complaints. They are then assigned a compliance officer who attempts to resolve the issues with their insurer.

    Joy Chen, chief executive and co-founder of the Eaton Fire Survivors Network, which, according to its website, has
    some 5,000 members, said that the compliance officers have not been successful in sorting out the disputes.

    “Across thousands of complaints I’ve seen discussed, I have barely heard of a single survivor who said DOI actually helped them resolve their claim,” she said. “At best, people say things like, ‘I finally got a return call from my adjuster — right before they left for vacation again.’”

    The department says the complaint process has helped policyholders whose homes were destroyed or damaged by the fires recover $67 million in insurance payments.

    Still, the department is considering referring some 400 unresolved complaints to its residential mediation program, two department sources with knowledge of the complaint process told the Los Angeles Times.

    That would far exceed the typical number of referrals in a year.

    Michael Soller, a spokesman for Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, said it was likely that some unresolved complaints would be referred to mediators but couldn’t say how many.

    In 2023, the latest year for which department statistics are available, just five residential insurance disputes were sent to mediation, resulting in settlements. The policyholders filed claims totaling $3.05 million and settled for $1.55 million.

    Over the last 10 years, there were years when no disputes went through mediation, despite a growing number of catastrophic fires statewide. Although 2019 was the busiest year for mediations in the last decade, only 72 cases were referred that year, according to the department’s annual reports.

    Tony Cignarale, the department’s deputy commissioner of consumer services and market conduct, said complaints are referred to mediation when policyholders and insurers reach an impasse despite the assistance of the department’s compliance officers, who number about 100 and handle complaints regarding multiple lines of insurance.

    The officers seek to determine what might be delaying resolution of a claim and ensure that insurance companies are complying with the law and their policies. However, they are not empowered to adjudicate such differences as factual disputes.

    “We try to move the ball forward, but we can’t be the judge and jury and say in this particular smoke damage claim you needed to test for these various things — asbestos, lead, chromium, etc. — and you need to do this type of restoration,” Cignarale said.

    He said a large number of smoke-damage cases arising out of the Jan. 7 fires and a lack of an industry standard for testing and restoration of the homes have complicated claims.

    Attorneys representing scores of Jan. 7 fire victims have filed suits against insurers and the California FAIR Plan Assn., the state’s insurer of last resort, over their handling of smoke-damage claims. Insurers deny treating policyholders unfairly.

    “I think the difficulty with mass disasters is the system is stressed, and there are going to be elements of the system that break down. And after every disaster, we find something new that could be improved,” said Rex Frazier, president of the Personal Insurance Federation of California, which represents major property and casualty insurers.

    Mediation is free for policyholders and available for cases involving claims exceeding $7,500 and disputes valued at more than $2,000. Policyholders can bring an attorney and have the right to reject participation in the process, but insurers are required to participate. Neither side is obligated to accept any offer.

    The program has its origins in a pilot program initiated to close hundreds of unresolved complaints after the 1994 Northridge earthquake. It was made permanent in 2005 through a bill that established a $1,500 flat fee borne by insurers and paid to mediators for each case. The department maintains a panel of about 90 independent mediators, Cignarale said.

    Attorney Arnie Levinson, a veteran mediator who has handled disputes between homeowners and insurers, said he charges $12,000 a day, which includes reading the submitted documents and appearing at the hearing to try to resolve the dispute.

    He said smoke-damage and total-loss cases can be complicated, with disputes about materials and upgrades, the size of the rebuild and the need for foundations. The $1,500 flat fee is too low, he said.

    “To get a quality mediator for that kind of money, it’s going to be very tough,” said Levinson, a mediator with Signature Resolution.

    Amy Bach, executive director of United Policyholders, a San Francisco-based consumer advocacy group, said the process is helpful because it is inexpensive and can resolve disputes faster than litigation. However, there can be pitfalls.

    “It’s important that the compensation be at appropriate levels to attract skilled and impartial mediators, and that the overall process be monitored for quality control,” she said.

    Bach added that mediators need to ensure that policyholders are not “ganged up on” by experienced insurance company representatives during the mediation.

    Chen said she feared that policyholders would be at a disadvantage during the hearing.

    Soller said the department stands by the process.

    Marcia Belforte, 67, relied on a mediator to deal with her insurer after her Santa Rosa home burned down in the 2017 Tubbs fire, which destroyed more than 5,500 structures in Northern California.

    “I prepped for weeks and weeks on this, and I literally had my whole policy bookmarked,” Belforte said.

    She said she was intimidated when the hearing started as her insurer had three representatives, but she said her knowledge of her policy prompted the carrier to ask to put the mediation on hold, intimating a forthcoming settlement.

    Ultimately, she hired an attorney who extracted a payment 30% higher than what the carrier was offering, enabling her to rebuild her home.

    “They didn’t have a case with me, and that’s what we found out during mediation, and that’s why it was so critical to go,” she said.

    Carmen Balber, executive director of Consumer Watchdog, a Los Angeles advocacy group, said she feared that pushing hundreds of cases into mediation may allow insurers to escape discipline for any wrongdoing.

    “My concern is that prematurely sending folks to mediation is going to hamstring the department’s investigation into unfair claims handling practices,” she said.

    Cignarale said the department is gathering information on possible illegal practices by insurers through the complaint process, which led to the announcement last month of an investigation into State Farm General’s claims-handling practices.

    State Farm, the largest home insurer in the state, has been the focus of complaints from Eaton Fire Survivors Network members, who say the insurer has resisted hygienic testing of smoke-damaged homes and offered lowball settlements for remediation.

    The company also is facing multiple lawsuits related to the fires, including one filed last month by fire victims who accused the company of leaving them deliberately underinsured. State Farm denies any wrongdoing.

    “State Farm takes every complaint seriously and our goal is to work with customers to resolve any of their concerns. We seek to provide every customer all benefits to which they are entitled within the terms of the insurance policy,” said company spokesperson Bob Devereux.

    The department has announced the creation of a Smoke Claims and Remediation Task Force to set standards for insurers. This month, Lara appointed Cignarale to lead the panel.

    [ad_2]

    Laurence Darmiento

    Source link

  • Man shot and killed inside Bronx deli during dispute, police say

    Man shot and killed inside Bronx deli during dispute, police say

    [ad_1]

    BRONX, New York (WABC) — A man was fatally shot inside a deli in the Bronx on Monday morning during a dispute, officials said.

    Police said it happened at 1712 University Ave. just before 7:30 a.m.

    The victim, who police said was in his 30s, was shot in the torso and pronounced dead at St. Barnabas Hospital.

    “I don’t feel good, my friend died. My friend died,” Manuel De La Rosa said.

    The victim’s friend, who identified the victim as Felipe, said his life was troubled.

    “A good guy but makes too many mistakes,” the friend said.

    A childhood friend, who grew up with the victim in the Dominican Republic, said Felipe had been in trouble with the law and struggled with drugs.

    Friends of the victim said he often slept in the basement of the deli and helped out at the store during the day.

    Police said the victim got into a dispute inside the deli before the shooting.

    Residents said they are hesitant to be in that area due to safety concerns.

    “No never. I never go inside. I don’t want to,” resident Sylvia Pena said.

    Residents said what goes on right out front troubles them daily.

    “You come here, be very careful. This area is very dangerous,” a resident said.

    Another resident said the area is a hotspot for illicit activity.

    “This is the problem, some people come here to buy the drug. They buy the drug, let’s go,” a resident said.

    Community members said there is often a police presence in the neighborhood but nothing seems to be done about the congregating that goes on outside the bodega.

    “They put at risk, the people, the customers and the employees of the store,” said Francisco Marte from Bodegas and Small Business Group.

    Police are still investigating the shooting and no arrests have been made.

    * Get Eyewitness News Delivered

    * Follow us on YouTube

    * More local news

    * Send us a news tip

    * Download the abc7NY app for breaking news alerts

    Submit a tip or story idea to Eyewitness News

    Have a breaking news tip or an idea for a story we should cover? Send it to Eyewitness News using the form below. If attaching a video or photo, terms of use apply.

    Copyright © 2024 WABC-TV. All Rights Reserved.

    [ad_2]

    WABC

    Source link

  • A soccer game in Irvine, America’s safest city, ends with a brawl and police investigation

    A soccer game in Irvine, America’s safest city, ends with a brawl and police investigation

    [ad_1]

    Club Garrafones, an undefeated soccer team from South Los Angeles, arrived in Irvine on Saturday ready to play.

    The opposing team, Irvine Zeta FC II, was younger and lower ranked but managed to pull an upset. A red card gave Zeta a penalty kick in the second half, and they scored, ultimately winning 2 to 1.

    After the game ended, a back-and-forth between opposing players turned into a dispute, an outright fight and, eventually, a brawl.

    Players pushed one another. Parents, family and spectators descended onto the field. Kicks, shoves and punches came in waves over the next few minutes.

    “One of their players came up and punched my player,” said Bryan Wallace, head coach of Irvine Zeta, “and that started the entire thing. Their team and their parents and a bunch of guys on their bench just started attacking.

    “One of their coaches attacked the goalkeeper. One of the other coaches attacked and kicked a parent. That to me is mind-blowing,” Wallace said. “We are supposed to set an example of how to act.”

    The fight resulted in one of Wallace’s 17-year-old players suffering a broken nose; a player’s dad was kicked in the head; several players left with split lips, and another had a chipped tooth.

    “They are on paper better than us, and they lost the game,” Wallace said. “And they were really triggered by that.”

    The brawl lasted at least four minutes. The incident is under investigation, said Sgt. Karie Davies of the Irvine Police Department. The inquiry will entail poring over cellphone footage by witnesses, which was broadcast by Fox11.

    “I reviewed the video, and it’s very chaotic,” Davies told The Times. “It will take time to sort out what happened and get people identified.”

    United Premier Soccer League, the professional development league with more than 400 clubs, including Zeta and Garrafones, announced this weekend it was investigating the dispute. Late Monday, the organization expelled Club Garrafones “effective immediately.”

    “As a result of a senseless and violent, post-game altercation on Saturday, Club Garrafones has been removed from the UPSL and a lifetime ban has been put in place for the organization and its coaching staff,” the league said in a statement. “All their remaining games will be declared a forfeit.”

    Reached Monday, the head coach and owner of Club Garrafones said he and his players felt maligned by the swift expulsion and what he called a rush to judgment.

    The coach, Roger Navarro, and his wife, Evelyn, told The Times that the opposing team — Wallace’s players — started the dispute. In their telling, one of Garrafones’ players fouled one of Wallace’s players near the game’s final moments.

    Instead of walking away, the Zetas player “went and tried to attack the player that fouled him,” Navarro said. Another Garrafones player tried to intervene and break up the scuffle, only to get hit from behind.

    “That’s how it started. That was the first brawl — but it wasn’t recorded,” Evelyn said.

    Navarro was more blunt: The Zetas “were whooping our a—” before the camera started rolling. His point was that once the cameras began recording, an act of self-defense appeared like needless aggression.

    Navarro conceded the sight captured by video cameras was not pretty.

    “Everything looks bad on our side. I know we look bad. But it wasn’t like they say it was,” Navarro said.

    Navarro and his wife said his players — nearly all Latinos from low-income backgrounds — faced repeated harassment and racial slurs from the opposing team in Irvine as the game pressed on Saturday night. The goalie, who wore a pink uniform, was taunted as “Peppa Pig” and shamed for his appearance, while other players were derided with slurs like “wetback” and “beaner.”

    “We didn’t start nothing, sir,” Navarro said. “We were defending ourselves.”

    Wallace, the coach of Irvine Zeta, rejected the accusation that his players uttered racial slurs.

    “That’s complete nonsense,” Wallace said. “My own players would be offended if any of my players said that.” He noted the several players on his team who hail from Mexico, Korea, and France. “My goalkeeper who got beat up is Mexican,” he added. “The rightback is Black from France. … It’s a mixture of people.”

    Police sirens brought the fight to an end. Navarro and his team left and returned to L.A.

    Wallace said he stayed behind to talk to police, and the officers collected statements from spectators who had observed the melee. The referees also drew up a report on what they witnessed, which was used to inform soccer league officials as they weighed whether to expel Navarro and his team.

    Wallace said the opposing coach left the scene quickly, and questioned why he would do so: “If you feel you are on the wrong side of anything that happened Saturday, stay. Speak to the police. Make your case. Speak up. Don’t run away. Show up, follow the rules, trust the system.

    “This type of behavior is unacceptable,” he later added.

    Navarro said the brawl and the elimination from the league were setbacks for him and his team. He contrasted his soccer club with other wealthier groups in the league, with parents typically paying hundreds of dollars and spending far more for their kids to travel and compete.

    “We’re not like every other academy that charges all these fees,” Navarro said. He and his wife said the team had offered a pathway for players to push themselves to complete their GEDs and go to community college. “We want to help keep these kids out of trouble.”

    [ad_2]

    Matt Hamilton

    Source link

  • What’s Missing From This Real Estate Contract?

    What’s Missing From This Real Estate Contract?

    [ad_1]

    When participants in real estate and other business transactions negotiate their contracts, they think about what might happen later and what legal consequences should arise from those events or circumstances. For example, a contract might prohibit a party from doing something. It might also say that if a party wants to do something, then the other party has certain rights, such as a consent right.

    Those provisions often focus on whatever the parties have on their mind, but they sometimes don’t go as far as they should. The net result of this failure is a gap that allows one party or the other to do something that, if the parties had thought to address it in their contract, would likely not have been allowed. This deficiency seems to arise most often in contract language relating to transfers.

    As one very common example, many leases and other contracts restrict the right of a party to assign the contract, or in other words bring in someone else who would take over that party’s rights and obligations under the contract. Sometimes a contract or lease assignment requires the other party’s consent. Other times no consent is needed if the assignment meets certain tests.

    In one recent Delaware case, a contract said that a party could not transfer its rights or obligations under the contract “by assignment, … merger, consolidation, … [or] change in management or control” of that party. The party subject to that assignment restriction was owned by a holding company, which was in turn by owned by another holding company, which was in turn owned by a second holding company—essentially a great-grandparent company.

    That last company, the great-grandparent, was the subject of a corporate merger that resulted in a change of control and a replacement of managers at all levels throughout the enterprise.

    The other party to the contract argued that the corporate merger of the great-grandparent amounted to a prohibited transfer of the contract. The court disagreed, concluding that the merger happened at the great-grandparent company level. The contract itself wasn’t transferred by merger or any other way. The contracting party remained as the exact same entity owned by the exact same holding company.

    That’s perhaps not what the parties (or at least one of them) had in mind when they wrote their anti-transfer language. When they referred to a “merger” or “change in management or control” they might have been thinking about possible corporate transactions anywhere in the ownership structure. But that’s not what they said. They just referred to a “transfer” of the contract by various possible means. One of those possible means of “transferring” the contract was a merger, which would have captured the case where just the specific contracting party merged into another entity and transferred the contract as part of the merger. Technically, though, that’s not what actually happened. What actually happened was something else, beyond the scope of the restriction that the parties had negotiated.

    The transfer prohibition in the contract sounded quite fierce and extensive in theory. In practice, though, it didn’t accomplish whatever the parties may have wanted it to accomplish. This happens with astonishing frequency, creating openings for contracting parties to do things that the other party might perceive as being inconsistent with the “spirit” of the deal.

    When attorneys and their clients negotiate contracts, they need to watch for these sorts of gaps and openings. Perhaps they’re intentional, but perhaps not. In contract negotiations, it can help to go beyond the words in the document and think about the wide range of possible events that might happen, and then make sure that the words capture everything they should capture.

    [ad_2]

    Joshua Stein, Contributor

    Source link

  • White Creek woman indicted for allegedly trying to kill cops

    White Creek woman indicted for allegedly trying to kill cops

    [ad_1]

    WHITE CREEK — A White Creek woman has been indicted for her alleged role in an incident where her husband is accused of firing multiple shots at police.

    Jane Jenkins, 43, is facing felony charges including two counts of first-degree attempted murder and three counts of second-degree attempted murder for the incident that took place on July 7.

    State police responded to 210 Jermain Hill Lane at about 10:43 p.m. for a report of a landlord-tenant dispute.

    Police said 38-year-old Matthew Parant, who rents a home on the property, got into a dispute with the property owner and got a rifle from inside his home. He then is accused of firing shots at officers and the property owner.

    Parant then barricaded himself in the home as numerous law enforcement agencies responded to the scene. The State Police Crisis Negotiations Unit responded and communicated with Parant for several hours to no avail. He left his residence just before 4:30 a.m. and attempted to flee the scene in a van when he was taken into custody.

    People are also reading…

    No one was injured in the incident.

    Parant was arraigned in Washington County Court on Sept. 16 on felony charges including three counts of second-degree attempted murder, two counts of first-degree attempted murder and reckless endangerment. He also faces two counts of misdemeanor second-degree menacing and misdemeanor criminal mischief.

    Authorities said previously that a woman on the property was not cooperative with the investigation.

    Washington County District Attorney Tony Jordan said on Thursday that Jenkins is being charged as an accomplice to Parant. He would not discuss the specifics about her case.

    The attempted murder counts allege that she intended to cause the death of a state police trooper, Washington County Sheriff’s deputy and the landlord, court documents showed.

    Jenkins denied any involvement in shooting at officers in a court filing. She alleged that the property owners had driven by that morning to take photographs and/or record her and Parant. Jenkins said the landlord had indicated they wanted to move the couple to another home on the property, so they could rent it out as an Airbnb.

    Jenkins also alleged that there were issues at the property such as a leaky roof, mice and bird infestation and problems with appliances.

    Jenkins denied any wrongdoing.

    “I stayed in the residence the entire time. I did not participate in my husband’s conduct, (or) condone his behavior,” she wrote in a statement.

    In addition to the attempted murder counts, Jenkins was also charged with a felony count of first-degree reckless endangerment and misdemeanors of second-degree menacing and fourth-degree criminal mischief.

    She was arraigned in Washington County Court on Sept. 23 and is free on bond.

    Jenkins’ attorney, Brian Premo, did not return a message seeking comment.

    Michael Goot is night and weekend editor of The Post-Star. Reach him at 518-742-3320.

    [ad_2]

    Source link