Connect with us

Business

L.A. fire victims say state regulators ignored complaints about State Farm

Published

on

L.A. fire victims say state regulators ignored complaints about State Farm

Last spring, victims of the Los Angeles wildfires complained loudly and en masse over how State Farm General was handling their insurance claims, especially for smoke damage.

Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara urged them to lodge formal complaints with the department.

“That’s how we track and how we monitor, and we make sure that we follow through … make sure that those claims are being addressed,” he told several hundred fire victims in a Zoom forum in May.

Nearly a year later, however, many homeowners and their representatives say the promise was hollow. They voice mounting frustration over how the California Department of Insurance investigated their complaints about State Farm.

Advertisement

More than a dozen homeowners and their representatives told The Times that the department did little to resolve a wide range of complaints, or prevent new problems, in State Farm’s handling of their claims.

“Seventy percent of insured Eaton and Palisades fire survivors are facing delays and denials that are impeding their recovery,” said Joy Chen, executive director of the Eaton Fire Survivors Network, citing a survey by the nonprofit Department of Angels. “That is evidence of the failure of this department to do its job.”

Policyholders shared complaints lodged against State Farm over denials to pay for the cleanup of fire toxins, rebuild estimates well below actual construction costs and delayed checks for living expenses. To the state they cited frequent turnover in adjusters and demands to sign legal papers agreeing to forego future reimbursement for personal items without itemized receipts.

Now, they said, State Farm is cutting off prepaid rentals and leases for fire victims who aren’t close to returning home.

Most of the fire victims said they were left in the dark about their cases, and were told to stop trying to communicate with their complaint handlers. Some said their cases were closed before their insurance disputes were settled.

Advertisement

“It doesn’t feel like it’s an actual, legitimate organization that’s meant to protect consumers,” said Len Kendall, who lost his home to the Pacific Palisades fire.

Kendall initially complained to the state about State Farm in July, citing delays in handling his total loss claim, dealing with multiple adjusters and struggles to get reimbursed for living expenses. Later he said he was told stop communicating with the state and to send his records “directly and solely” to State Farm.

“We’re told that they’re tracking information and speaking to the insurers, but we have no idea what is happening,” Kendall said. “ When it comes to the [insurance department], we’re all totally in the dark.”

A spokesperson for State Farm declined to address complaints from L.A. fire victims.

A representative for the state insurance department declined to comment on its handling of complaints against State Farm.

Advertisement

The agency did say it had “recovered” more than $210 million for fire victims “through its intervention and aggressive advocacy on these complaints.”

“We do our best to approach every wildfire survivor with empathy and understanding,” Michael Soller, spokesman for the insurance department, said late Wednesday. “Our goal is helping people recover fully, fairly, and quickly. We hold ourselves to the highest standards.”

He encouraged those with insurance disputes to contact the department. “We will do our best to expedite their claims,” he said.

The mistrust between fire victims and the department has been deepened by newly released records showing the department disciplined one its senior complaint handlers after she criticized State Farm over its claims handling, according to personnel records reviewed by The Times.

In a July letter to a State Farm case manager, Coleen Vandepas — a 32-year-veteran of the department who had previously been commended for her work on behalf of policyholders — accused the insurer of “shoddy” and “shameful” handling of an L.A. fire claim, including claiming it did not have test results within the insurer’s possession. She demanded the company apologize to its policyholder. In another policyholder’s case, she said State Farm engaged in a “pattern and practice” of delay.

Advertisement

Records show that days later, a State Farm lawyer called a top-level executive at the insurance department to complain about Vandepas’ statements.

Vandepas’ State Farm caseload was subsequently reassigned and she was docked 10% of her pay, according to personnel records. Her supervisors said Vandepas had made “accusatory” and “improper” remarks about State Farm, and cited a LinkedIn post State Farm had called attention to, in which she characterized insurance company threats to leave California as “wailing” by companies that wanted to “make huge amounts off the backs of the citizens of California.”

A state personnel board law judge reviewing the discipline called Vandepas’ remarks “rude and disparaging” and the full board this month rejected her appeal. A new appeal has been filed with the California Public Employee Relations Board, noting Vandepas was also protected as a union steward and was in part punished for raising internal workload issues.

The workplace action has angered advocates for wildfire victims.

“This sends a message to every single person who works at [the California Department of Insurance]: ‘You may be next,” said Chen, a former deputy mayor of Los Angeles.

Advertisement

Through its corporate media office in Illinois, State Farm declined to comment on the sanctions against Vandepas.

“We are not a party to the case in question,” the Illinois-based insurer said in a statement. “We have ongoing relationships with state regulators so we can best meet the needs of our customers.”

Investigations into State Farm

State Farm was in the midst of dropping some 72,000 policies in California, and seeking a $1.3-billion rate hike, when the Jan. 7, 2025, firestorm ravaged Los Angeles. The disaster killed 31, destroyed more than 16,000 structures, and left many others unable to return to their homes. As of November, the insurance department reported more than 42,000 home and commercial insurance claims.

By far, the largest share of those claims are with State Farm General, the California subsidiary of State Farm Mutual. A survey of about 2,300 five victims by the Department of Angels noted State Farm policyholders reported higher rates of claim denials, low estimates and other complaints than customers of other insurers.

Los Angeles County in November opened its own investigation into State Farm’s claims handling, demanding the insurer turn over reams of information, including company policy guides, training materials for handling fire and smoke claims, among other documents.

Advertisement

In June, Lara launched what he called an expedited market conduct exam of State Farm. The findings have yet to be released.

Lara rejected pressure from wildfire victim advocates to delay an interim 17% emergency hike until State Farm’s claims practices could be examined. He said they would be taken up in the full rate review. There has been no public hearings on the full hike. The case could be settled by the end of the month, state lawyers told a judge this week.

The insurance giant has a history of pushing strongly against regulators.

The company has refused to provide financial records sought by California actuaries attempting to judge the merit of its pending rate hike, including plans to drop another 11,000 policies, according to public rate filing records obtained by The Times.

The insurance department tracks complaints by disaster, as well as by insurer, but has rejected public record requests for that data. Its consumer complaint group has just 34 employees and hasn’t changed staffing levels despite the surge in wildfire claims in 2025, according to California payroll records.

Advertisement

Internal agency emails show a State Farm executive in May 2025 told Lara the insurer had received less than 310 policyholder complaints among 10,359 Los Angeles fire claims at the time. (Most of the cases reviewed by The Times were filed later.)

“SFG is not an outlier with respect to the number of complaints received in relation to the number of claims from the January 2025 wildfires,” State Farm General CEO Dan Krause wrote to Lara.

Insurance companies have 21 days to respond when a complaint is filed, and then state compliance officers can review the record for adherence with insurance law. They cannot make a determination of fault, or the size of an award. In a process kept confidential, they can challenge insurers with questions, asking them to explain their decisions. If they see violations, they cannot take action against an insurer. And they cannot tell the policyholder.

The insurance department contends the complaint process has resulted in the reversal of claim denials, increased payouts and agreements in individual cases to test for the toxic residues of wildfire smoke.

But interviews and records reviewed by The Times revealed inconsistencies in how wildfire disaster complaints were handled.

Advertisement

Some compliance officers told policyholders to stop sharing correspondence with their insurance companies or adjusters, saying they would read the claim files for themselves. Policyholders frustrated by the silence sought to file new complaints or have their cases reassigned, only to be refused.

After five months of sending protests about a “non-responsive” compliance officer, one fire victim was told by a bureau supervisor that she had two other alternatives to resolve her insurance dispute: seek a lawyer or file a lawsuit.

Three officers attempted to close policyholder cases even though the insurance claim remained in dispute. In one instance, a compliance officer referenced the wrong insurance company and the wrong issue being contested, letters shared with The Times show.

Andrew Wessels said State Farm prematurely closed this case after he challenged the insurers initial refusal to address toxic residues in his house left standing among the rubble of the Eaton fire, or its failure to pay living expenses.

For months, Wessels repeatedly wrote to alert his compliance officer that State Farm was making false claims. The state reviewer wrote back once to acknowledge receipt of further complaints he would add to the case file. Then in October the case officer tried to close the still-disputed State Farm claim, calling it “in stable condition.”

Advertisement

“The Department would find its task of regulating the insurance industry much more difficult without the help of consumers like you,” the closure letter said.

Wessels protested and his case was reopened. He continues to wrestle with State Farm over safety tests, delayed living expenses and ever-changing adjusters. He emails updates to his state insurance compliance officer.

“I just periodically send an email into oblivion, basically,” he said.

Advertisement

Business

Commentary: A surge in Nevada data center construction threatens the electricity supply for 49,000 Californians

Published

on

Commentary: A surge in Nevada data center construction threatens the electricity supply for 49,000 Californians

Local opposition has blocked or delayed more than a dozen huge data center projects around the country. But these Californians don’t get a vote on Nevada projects that could affect their electricity supply.

Those big data centers being built for artificial intelligence firms are in bad odor nationwide.

Seven in 10 Americans oppose projects in their local communities, according to a recent Gallup poll. More than a dozen, valued at some $64 billion, have been blocked or delayed by local opposition in recent years.

But what happens when the people directly affected by these project plans don’t get a vote?

Data centers did not influence this decision.

— NV Energy, explaining its move to end service to 49,000 California customers. But is it telling the truth?

Advertisement

That’s the quandary faced by 49,000 residents living on the California side of Lake Tahoe, mostly in the city of South Lake Tahoe. The surge in construction of data centers in Nevada is prompting the Nevada utility that supplies 75% of the Californians’ electricity to cut them off next year.

The California-regulated utility that carries the electricity over the state line to their homes and businesses has assured them that it will find alternative sources to protect them from losing service — but hasn’t promised that their rates won’t increase because of the transition.

“It’s like we don’t exist,” Danielle Hughes, the head of a local energy nonprofit and an advocate for the customers, told me. The crisis facing those residents is just the latest in a long line of indignities they have suffered thanks to several unique characteristics of their energy market, Hughes says.

Advertisement

For one thing, they are permanent residents of the community — teachers, firefighters, police, and service workers at the hotels, restaurants and resorts that bring in a tidal wave of visitors every winter. The latter, as well as vacation-home owners and renters, generate seasonal electricity demands that drive up power costs year-round.

That means that the permanent residents are in effect subsizing the visitors, even though they’re lower-income ratepayers than the generally well-heeled vacationers.

Before delving deeper into the issues for the permanent residents, let’s examine the effect of the large-scale data centers being built and proposed in Nevada, and more generally coast to coast.

Nevada has emerged as a prime location for data centers, in part due to the wide open, undeveloped acreage available for construction. More than 60 data centers have sprung up around Reno and Las Vegas, with many more slated to rise in the northern part of the state, according to a survey by the Desert Research Institute, a Nevada nonprofit.

“We’re right at the epicenter for global expansion” of data centers, observed Sean McKenna, a co-author of the report.

Advertisement

The existing data centers consumed 22% of Nevada’s electric generating capacity in 2024, DRI calculated. If all those under construction and on the drawing board are completed, that figure would rise to 35% by 2030. NV Energy, the Nevada utility that provides the electricity for the California side of Lake Tahoe, estimates that the electricity demand for just the 12 projects being planned would come to 5,900 megawatts — nearly three times the generating capacity of Hoover Dam.

That construction frenzy is likely to bring some of the same drawbacks that have provoked local communities to militate against data centers — not only pressure on existing electricity capacity, but also a voracious appetite for water due to the cooling needs of the computerized equipment managing the data for AI applications. Residents in the neighborhoods of data centers have also complained of incessant noise coming from their 24/7 operations.

With global warming driving up temperatures in Nevada’s semiarid and desert zones, they add, residents will find themselves in a contest with data center owners for an already inadequate supply of power in the state. DRI warns: “Local utilities and ratepayers in data center cluster regions like Northern Nevada also risk bearing the costs of subsidizing AI and computing services as power grids expand their infrastructure.”

In many communities, the result has been a vigorous and vocal backlash, including in California. They’ve packed town halls, prompted state and local political leaders to legislate limits on their growth or even to ban them.

That brings us back to the situation around Lake Tahoe.

Advertisement

In terms of its electric utility service, the region has long been an outlier. About 25% of its power comes from two solar farms operated by Liberty Utilities, but the rest comes from NV Energy; the reason is that it’s unconnected with the California transmission grid but accessible via a line from Nevada.

As a result, it falls into the cracks among energy regulators. Because it’s not part of the California grid, the California Public Utilities Commission has only limited jurisdiction over its service, although it has the authority to approve its electricity rates. The Nevada Public Utilities Commission doesn’t oversee the customers’ service at all, because they’re not Nevada residents.

The region is also unusual because its peak energy demand comes in the winter; most of the rest of California peaks in the summer, when air conditioners are on full blast.

Hughes and other residents have maintained that because the CPUC hasn’t modeled electricity demand for their small region, they have been paying for infrastructure that doesn’t serve them.

“We’ve been paying for assets in Nevada,” Hughes says, “without it being tracked by the state of California.”

Advertisement

Liberty does charge permanent residents in the Tahoe area about 2% less than the rate for part-time residents, but the discount should be much larger, Hughes says. Liberty didn’t respond to my request for comment.

Earlier this year, NV Energy informed Liberty that it would no longer serve as its wholesale energy provider after mid-May next year, and urged Liberty to make haste to secure an alternate supplier.

Liberty promised its customers in a recent statement that they “will not be left without service” as a result of the change. “This does not mean the power is shutting off,” Eric Schwarzrock, president of Liberty Utilities, said at a South Lake Tahoe City Council meeting last month, according to the news site SFGate. “Energy companies, utilities, large customers change energy supply frequently.”

Liberty and NV Energy both attributed the change to a preexisting agreement that anticipated that NV Energy would eventually cease providing power to Liberty’s customers, although their interpretations of the deal and the impetus for the change appear to be at odds.

The “long-standing agreements and planning assumptions … date back more than a decade,” NV Energy said in a May 14 statement. That was “well before data center growth became a factor,” the utility said. “Data centers did not influence this decision.”

Advertisement

That is, to be charitable, dubious. How do we know? Liberty said so in a March 6 letter to the California Public Utilities Commission, requesting permission to take “immediate action” to find alternative providers.

The letter stated that Liberty had expected its arrangement with NV Energy to “continue indefinitely.” During their last negotiations for an extension of the deal, however, NV Energy informed Liberty that it would cease serving Liberty on May 31, 2027, with a possible extension to Dec. 31.

“This change of stance by NV Energy was a surprise to Liberty,” the letter said. Liberty ascribed NV Energy’s decision to new “market circumstances” in the latter’s home service region. Among them: “A number of entities are seeking to add large loads such as data centers into the area.”

NV Energy says it will continue serving Liberty’s customers until Liberty secures a new supplier, even if it misses the May 2027 deadline; the ultimate deadline is Dec. 31, 2027, when NV Energy expects to complete its 350-mile Greenlink West transmission line between Las Vegas and the Reno area, part of a $4.2-billion infrastructure upgrade.

Yet that still leaves an open question that should make those customers nervous: How much will they be paying for power?

Advertisement

In its recent statement to customers, Liberty made only the vaguest of promises. “While no utiulity can predict the exact future cost of energy,” it said, “affordability is a primary goal” in its search for new suppliers. “With a competitive bidding process, we aim to find a cost-effective solution for your monthly bill.”

But any new supplier would have to come from outside California, because of the region’s lack of any connection with the state’s grid. And generators in nearby states face their own rising demands from data centers, drought and global warming.

The drawbacks of these massive industrial installations are beginning to be felt by their neighbors, including higher electricity prices and dwindling water supplies. They’re only going to get worse.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Video: Jury Rejects Elon Musk’s Lawsuit Against OpenAI and Microsoft

Published

on

Video: Jury Rejects Elon Musk’s Lawsuit Against OpenAI and Microsoft

new video loaded: Jury Rejects Elon Musk’s Lawsuit Against OpenAI and Microsoft

transcript

transcript

Jury Rejects Elon Musk’s Lawsuit Against OpenAI and Microsoft

Elon Musk had accused OpenAI of “stealing a charity” by attaching a commercial company to Open AI, which was founded as a nonprofit. But a jury ruled that the statute of limitations had expired.

“The evidence that Mr. Musk’s lawsuit was an after-the-fact contrivance by a competitor was overwhelming.” “This reminds me of key moments in this country’s history. The siege of Charleston, the Battle of Bunker Hill, these were major losses for Americans. But who won the war? And this one is not over. And to sum it up, I can sum it up in one word: appeal.”

Advertisement
Elon Musk had accused OpenAI of “stealing a charity” by attaching a commercial company to Open AI, which was founded as a nonprofit. But a jury ruled that the statute of limitations had expired.

By Meg Felling

May 18, 2026

Continue Reading

Business

Five Guys to close two L.A.-area locations

Published

on

Five Guys to close two L.A.-area locations

Five Guys will close two Los Angeles-area locations later this month.

The burger chain announced in a recent state filing that its locations in City of Industry and Whittier will close in late May. An outlet in Merced will also close its doors in late June, and one in Hanford will shut down in early July, according to state court filings.

The burger giant is the latest fast-food chain to shutter locations as the industry struggles with rising labor and real estate costs in the state.

The company cited “financial hardship” as a reason for the closures, according to a filing.

Employers are legally required to submit a Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification, or WARN notice, to alert employers, state and local officials at least 60 days before major layoffs. The initial notices were submitted in late April and early May.

Advertisement

The chain had steady growth in 2024, but seems to have stumbled in California. It opened 37 new storefronts that year, according to the company’s franchise disclosure document. Yet California stores accounted for eight of the 14 locations that closed that year.

The closures will result in 55 jobs lost across the four locations, according to the WARN notice.

A spokesperson for Five Guys did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Fast food chains have struggled against rising operational costs and increasingly cost-conscious customers.

California’s economic landscape has further complicated business in the state. While aerospace and defense companies have continued to flock to the state, companies in other sectors, including food, have started to bail out.

Advertisement

Five Guys ranked 42 in QSR Magazine’s top 50 U.S. restaurants list for 2026 and the number of locations in the country rose by 2% in 2025.

The chain got its start around 40 years ago in Virginia and now operates over 1,900 locations, according to its website.

The restaurant’s website lists over 85 locations in California, including at least 15 storefronts in the Los Angeles area.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending