A Los Angeles judge has denied a petition by State Farm and other insurers to dismiss two lawsuits accusing them of colluding to drive homeowners onto California’s FAIR Plan.
The lawsuits, which accuse the insurers of violating the state’s antirust and unfair competition laws, were largely upheld in a decision Thursday by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Samantha Jessner.
The judge struck two less significant claims from the lawsuits filed last year, but allowed the case to proceed against more than dozen major California insurers, led by State Farm General, the state’s largest.
“This is very good news for our people, our plaintiffs, because we’re going to be able to go ahead now with our antitrust claims in both cases,” said Bob Ruyak, an attorney representing the homeowners.
Sevag Sarkissian, a State Farm spokesperson, said the ruling did not “address the accuracy of the allegations” and that the company looks “forward to presenting our case in court.”
The lawsuits allege the companies financially benefited when policyholders were dropped and moved onto the FAIR Plan, since they financially back the insurer that sells more expensive policies which offer less coverage.
One lawsuit led by Todd and Kimberley Ferrier — whose Pacific Palisades home burned down — seeks to compensate 60 homeowners who experienced fire losses exacerbated by the FAIR Plan’s limited coverage.
The other case is a proposed class action that would compensate policyholders for the higher premiums they paid to the plan.
The case has garnered the attention of the federal Department of Justice, which filed a brief this month disputing an argument made by the insurers to have the case thrown out.
The insurers had alleged that they were shielded from antitrust liability under both California and federal law due to a certain legal doctrine.
While the department took no position on the merits of the collusion allegations, it said it files such briefs “where doing so helps protect competition and consumers, including by encouraging the sound development of the antitrust laws.”
The decision by the department to insert itself in the case followed a March post by President Trump bashing State Farm on social media after a visit to Pacific Palisades by administration officials.
The president called State Farm’s treatment of January 2025 wildfire victims “absolutely horrible” and asked EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin for a list of insurers who “acted swiftly” and those that were “particularly bad.”
Also this month, the California Department of Insurance filed an administrative action against State Farm seeking possible suspension of the carrier’s insurance license, alleging State Farm mishandled January 2025 wildfire claims.
The company acknowledges some claims were mishandled but rejected claims it engaged in a “general practice of mishandling or intentionally underpaying wildfire claims.”
The company says the California’s homeowners insurance market is the most “dysfunctional” in the country, with state regulators contributing to “delays and uncertainty that have contributed to fewer choices and higher costs for consumers.”
