Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

By Barry Zalma, Esq.

In 1968, the legislature enacted the California FAIR Plan to provide property insurance to the otherwise uninsurable. Appellants, who lived in high fire risk areas, were insured under the FAIR Plan. Following wildfires, appellants were paid the full amount of their policy limits because their loss was equal to or exceeded the policy limits. Appellants contended, however, that they were entitled to additional payments and should have coverage provided to them under a standard homeowners policy rather than the fire policies issued by the FAIR Plan. The trial court disagreed, determining that the FAIR Plan had met its contractual and statutory obligations to them. The California Court of Appeal, in Gaeton St. Cyr v. California Fair Plan Association, 223 Cal.App.4th 786, 167 Cal.Rptr.3d 507 (2014) resolved whether the policy issued by the FAIR Plan to the plaintiffs should have provided broader coverage. 

This premium content is locked for
Insurance Coverage Law Center subscribers only.

Start a free trial to enjoy unlimited access to the single source of objective legal analysis, practical insights, and news for the insurance industry.

  • Access the most current expert analysis and daily developments across jurisdictions
  • Solve complex research issues with expert tools and intelligence
  • Tap into insurance coverage expert guidance

Already have an account?
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact our Sales Department at 1-800-543-0874 or email [email protected].

ICLC Staff Writer


Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.