Wednesday, June 17, 2026

Local Fire Survivor Group Seeks Seat in State Farm Case Over Handling of Eaton Fire Claims

A wildfire survivor advocacy organization representing survivors of the Eaton and Palisades fires has asked to become a formal party in California’s enforcement case against State Farm, arguing that Altadena and Pasadena-area policyholders should have a direct voice in proceedings that could determine penalties and remedies arising from the insurer’s handling of fire claims.

The petition, filed June 16 with the California Department of Insurance, seeks permission for Every Fire Survivor’s Network, known as EFSN, to intervene in an administrative proceeding arising from the state’s Accusation and Order to Show Cause against State Farm General Insurance Co. over its handling of claims related to the January 2025 Eaton and Palisades fires.

EFSN argues that many of its members are State Farm policyholders whose claims are directly implicated by the proceeding and whose legal rights could be affected by its outcome. The organization contends that California’s Administrative Procedure Act requires intervention because the proceeding could substantially affect policyholders’ rights, pending claims and future remedies available to affected survivors.

“The only way to test State Farm’s story is to hear from the people who lived it,” the petition states.

The filing comes amid an ongoing case brought by the California Department of Insurance against State Farm. According to documents filed by the department, regulators reviewed 220 wildfire-related claim files and identified 398 alleged violations involving 114 of those claims.

The department’s examination cited alleged violations involving delayed investigations, delayed payments, inadequate communications, repeated reassignment of adjusters, alleged underpayments and problems involving smoke-damage claims.

The Department of Insurance’s May 4 Accusation and Order to Show Cause alleges that State Farm engaged in unlawful claims-handling practices following the Eaton Fire in Altadena, Pasadena and Sierra Madre and the Palisades Fire in western Los Angeles County.

The department’s filing states that the broader case involves more than 430 alleged violations, including violations identified through the market conduct examination and additional violations uncovered through consumer complaints investigated by the department’s Consumer Services Division.

The department is seeking remedies that could include suspension of State Farm’s California certificate of authority for up to one year, a cease-and-desist order and civil penalties.

EFSN argues that the state’s examination reviewed only a small portion of the claims generated by the fires and that survivors possess evidence that could help determine whether the alleged violations reflected isolated mistakes or broader business practices. The petition contends that the outcome could influence corrective actions, future enforcement measures, policyholder notices and the handling of claims affecting survivors represented by the organization.

The organization states in its petition that it has compiled more than 1,600 firsthand accounts from Eaton and Palisades State Farm policyholders and represents more than 10,000 fire survivors and allies. The filing says those accounts describe recurring issues including delays, repeated reassignment of adjusters, disputes over smoke contamination testing, alleged underpayment of claims and prolonged displacement from damaged homes.

The petition traces the organization’s involvement to the months immediately following the Jan. 7, 2025 fires. According to the filing, EFSN organized survivor documentation efforts, hosted public forums with state insurance officials, and held an April 2025 press conference in front of State Farm’s catastrophe tent in Pasadena, where survivors publicly described alleged delays, denied smoke testing and low settlement estimates.

EFSN contends that survivors should be permitted to participate fully in the case by receiving filings, conducting discovery, submitting briefs, presenting evidence and survivor testimony, cross-examining witnesses, presenting oral arguments and participating in prehearing conferences, settlement discussions and mediation.

The organization also asks that evidentiary hearings be conducted in Los Angeles County rather than Sacramento or Oakland. The petition argues that the properties at issue, the affected policyholders and the witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the claims are located in Los Angeles County.

Beyond participation rights, EFSN argues that the penalties sought by regulators may not go far enough. The petition describes the department’s proposed $2 million fine as inadequate and contends that stronger penalties are necessary to deter future misconduct. The organization also urges remedies extending beyond financial penalties, including reviews of wildfire claims closed without full payment, corrective notices to policyholders, reporting requirements and follow-up examinations of State Farm’s claims practices.

State Farm has rejected allegations that it engaged in a general practice of mishandling or intentionally underpaying wildfire claims.

In written comments submitted June 2 to the California Department of Insurance and attached to the filing as Exhibit C, State Farm said it received more than 11,000 claims arising from the Eaton and Palisades fires, communicated with policyholders more than 2 million times and paid more than $5.9 billion in claims.

The company described the market conduct examination as unprecedented in both timing and scope and characterized many of the findings as involving administrative and procedural issues. State Farm said it disputes numerous conclusions reached by regulators and maintains that the cited instances do not establish a general business practice in violation of California law.

The filing notes that State Farm and the Department of Insurance disagree not only about the significance of individual violations but also about whether the cited conduct constitutes a broader business practice under California law.

No ruling on EFSN’s request to intervene is included in the filing.