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

Trump orders federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI after clash with Pentagon

Published

on

Trump orders federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI after clash with Pentagon

President Trump on Friday directed federal agencies to stop using technology from San Francisco artificial intelligence company Anthropic, escalating a high-profile clash between the AI startup and the Pentagon over safety.

In a Friday post on the social media site Truth Social, Trump described the company as “radical left” and “woke.”

“We don’t need it, we don’t want it, and will not do business with them again!” Trump said.

The president’s harsh words mark a major escalation in the ongoing battle between some in the Trump administration and several technology companies over the use of artificial intelligence in defense tech.

Anthropic has been sparring with the Pentagon, which had threatened to end its $200-million contract with the company on Friday if it didn’t loosen restrictions on its AI model so it could be used for more military purposes. Anthropic had been asking for more guarantees that its tech wouldn’t be used for surveillance of Americans or autonomous weapons.

Advertisement

The tussle could hobble Anthropic’s business with the government. The Trump administration said the company was added to a sweeping national security blacklist, ordering federal agencies to immediately discontinue use of its products and barring any government contractors from maintaining ties with it.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who met with Anthropic’s Chief Executive Dario Amodei this week, criticized the tech company after Trump’s Truth Social post.

“Anthropic delivered a master class in arrogance and betrayal as well as a textbook case of how not to do business with the United States Government or the Pentagon,” he wrote Friday on social media site X.

Anthropic didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Anthropic announced a two-year agreement with the Department of Defense in July to “prototype frontier AI capabilities that advance U.S. national security.”

Advertisement

The company has an AI chatbot called Claude, but it also built a custom AI system for U.S. national security customers.

On Thursday, Amodei signaled the company wouldn’t cave to the Department of Defense’s demands to loosen safety restrictions on its AI models.

The government has emphasized in negotiations that it wants to use Anthropic’s technology only for legal purposes, and the safeguards Anthropic wants are already covered by the law.

Still, Amodei was worried about Washington’s commitment.

“We have never raised objections to particular military operations nor attempted to limit use of our technology in an ad hoc manner,” he said in a blog post. “However, in a narrow set of cases, we believe AI can undermine, rather than defend, democratic values.”

Advertisement

Tech workers have backed Anthropic’s stance.

Unions and worker groups representing 700,000 employees at Amazon, Google and Microsoft said this week in a joint statement that they’re urging their employers to reject these demands as well if they have additional contracts with the Pentagon.

“Our employers are already complicit in providing their technologies to power mass atrocities and war crimes; capitulating to the Pentagon’s intimidation will only further implicate our labor in violence and repression,” the statement said.

Anthropic’s standoff with the U.S. government could benefit its competitors, such as Elon Musk’s xAI or OpenAI.

Sam Altman, chief executive of OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT and one of Anthropic’s biggest competitors, told CNBC in an interview that he trusts Anthropic.

Advertisement

“I think they really do care about safety, and I’ve been happy that they’ve been supporting our war fighters,” he said. “I’m not sure where this is going to go.”

Anthropic has distinguished itself from its rivals by touting its concern about AI safety.

The company, valued at roughly $380 billion, is legally required to balance making money with advancing the company’s public benefit of “responsible development and maintenance of advanced AI for the long-term benefit of humanity.”

Developers, businesses, government agencies and other organizations use Anthropic’s tools. Its chatbot can generate code, write text and perform other tasks. Anthropic also offers an AI assistant for consumers and makes money from paid subscriptions as well as contracts. Unlike OpenAI, which is testing ads in ChatGPT, Anthropic has pledged not to show ads in its chatbot Claude.

The company has roughly 2,000 employees and has revenue equivalent to about $14 billion a year.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

Published

on

Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

new video loaded: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

In mapping out Elon Musk’s wealth, our investigation found that Mr. Musk is behind more than 90 companies in Texas. Kirsten Grind, a New York Times Investigations reporter, explains what her team found.

By Kirsten Grind, Melanie Bencosme, James Surdam and Sean Havey

February 27, 2026

Continue Reading

Business

Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office

Published

on

Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office

Trump has crowed about the gains in the U.S. stock market during his term, but in 2025 investors saw more opportunity in the rest of the world.

If you’re a stock market investor you might be feeling pretty good about how your portfolio of U.S. equities fared in the first year of President Trump’s term.

All the major market indices seemed to be firing on all cylinders, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 index gaining 17.9% through the full year.

But if you’re the type of investor who looks for things to regret, pay no attention to the rest of the world’s stock markets. That’s because overseas markets did better than the U.S. market in 2025 — a lot better. The MSCI World ex-USA index — that is, all the stock markets except the U.S. — gained more than 32% last year, nearly double the percentage gains of U.S. markets.

That’s a major departure from recent trends. Since 2013, the MSCI US index had bested the non-U.S. index every year except 2017 and 2022, sometimes by a wide margin — in 2024, for instance, the U.S. index gained 24.6%, while non-U.S. markets gained only 4.7%.

Advertisement

The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade.

— Katie Martin, Financial Times

Broken down into individual country markets (also by MSCI indices), in 2025 the U.S. ranked 21st out of 23 developed markets, with only New Zealand and Denmark doing worse. Leading the pack were Austria and Spain, with 86% gains, but superior records were turned in by Finland, Ireland and Hong Kong, with gains of 50% or more; and the Netherlands, Norway, Britain and Japan, with gains of 40% or more.

Investment analysts cite several factors to explain this trend. Judging by traditional metrics such as price/earnings multiples, the U.S. markets have been much more expensive than those in the rest of the world. Indeed, they’re historically expensive. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index traded in 2025 at about 23 times expected corporate earnings; the historical average is 18 times earnings.

Advertisement

Investment managers also have become nervous about the concentration of market gains within the U.S. technology sector, especially in companies associated with artificial intelligence R&D. Fears that AI is an investment bubble that could take down the S&P’s highest fliers have investors looking elsewhere for returns.

But one factor recurs in almost all the market analyses tracking relative performance by U.S. and non-U.S. markets: Donald Trump.

Investors started 2025 with optimism about Trump’s influence on trading opportunities, given his apparent commitment to deregulation and his braggadocio about America’s dominant position in the world and his determination to preserve, even increase it.

That hasn’t been the case for months.

”The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade,” Katie Martin of the Financial Times wrote this week. “Wherever you look in financial markets, you see signs that global investors are going out of their way to avoid Donald Trump’s America.”

Advertisement

Two Trump policy initiatives are commonly cited by wary investment experts. One, of course, is Trump’s on-and-off tariffs, which have left investors with little ability to assess international trade flows. The Supreme Court’s invalidation of most Trump tariffs and the bellicosity of his response, which included the immediate imposition of new 10% tariffs across the board and the threat to increase them to 15%, have done nothing to settle investors’ nerves.

Then there’s Trump’s driving down the value of the dollar through his agitation for lower interest rates, among other policies. For overseas investors, a weaker dollar makes U.S. assets more expensive relative to the outside world.

It would be one thing if trade flows and the dollar’s value reflected economic conditions that investors could themselves parse in creating a picture of investment opportunities. That’s not the case just now. “The current uncertainty is entirely man-made (largely by one orange-hued man in particular) but could well continue at least until the US mid-term elections in November,” Sam Burns of Mill Street Research wrote on Dec. 29.

Trump hasn’t been shy about trumpeting U.S. stock market gains as emblems of his policy wisdom. “The stock market has set 53 all-time record highs since the election,” he said in his State of the Union address Tuesday. “Think of that, one year, boosting pensions, 401(k)s and retirement accounts for the millions and the millions of Americans.”

Trump asserted: “Since I took office, the typical 401(k) balance is up by at least $30,000. That’s a lot of money. … Because the stock market has done so well, setting all those records, your 401(k)s are way up.”

Advertisement

Trump’s figure doesn’t conform to findings by retirement professionals such as the 401(k) overseers at Bank of America. They reported that the average account balance grew by only about $13,000 in 2025. I asked the White House for the source of Trump’s claim, but haven’t heard back.

Interpreting stock market returns as snapshots of the economy is a mug’s game. Despite that, at her recent appearance before a House committee, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi tried to deflect questions about her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein records by crowing about it.

“The Dow is over 50,000 right now, she declared. “Americans’ 401(k)s and retirement savings are booming. That’s what we should be talking about.”

I predicted that the administration would use the Dow industrial average’s break above 50,000 to assert that “the overall economy is firing on all cylinders, thanks to his policies.” The Dow reached that mark on Feb. 6. But Feb. 11, the day of Bondi’s testimony, was the last day the index closed above 50,000. On Thursday, it closed at 49,499.50, or about 1.4% below its Feb. 10 peak close of 50,188.14.

To use a metric suggested by economist Justin Wolfers of the University of Michigan, if you invested $48,488 in the Dow on the day Trump took office last year, when the Dow closed at 48,448 points, you would have had $50,000 on Feb. 6. That’s a gain of about 3.2%. But if you had invested the same amount in the global stock market not including the U.S. (based on the MSCI World ex-USA index), on that same day you would have had nearly $60,000. That’s a gain of nearly 24%.

Advertisement

Broader market indices tell essentially the same story. From Jan. 17, 2025, the last day before Trump’s inauguration, through Thursday’s close, the MSCI US stock index gained a cumulative 16.3%. But the world index minus the U.S. gained nearly 42%.

The gulf between U.S. and non-U.S. performance has continued into the current year. The S&P 500 has gained about 0.74% this year through Wednesday, while the MSCI World ex-USA index has gained about 8.9%. That’s “the best start for a calendar year for global stocks relative to the S&P 500 going back to at least 1996,” Morningstar reports.

It wouldn’t be unusual for the discrepancy between the U.S. and global markets to shrink or even reverse itself over the course of this year.

That’s what happened in 2017, when overseas markets as tracked by MSCI beat the U.S. by more than three percentage points, and 2022, when global markets lost money but U.S. markets underperformed the rest of the world by more than five percentage points.

Economic conditions change, and often the stock markets march to their own drummers. The one thing less likely to change is that Trump is set to remain president until Jan. 20, 2029. Make your investment bets accordingly.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending