14 Trial Lawyer • Spring 2023 Wildfire Continued from p 13 call. The fire had broken containment further south and was heading directly for his business located outside the city. With the fire line on the horizon and ash raining through the air, Brad raced to his store in time to save a few personal mementos and document the property on site. He quickly evacuated to escape the flames. When he returned, his tools, equipment and inventory were gone. Brad made a claim with his carrier and almost instantly began experiencing difficulty. Despite having purchased a fire policy believing he had coverage sufficient to pay for his entire loss, Brad’s policy was set with very low limits on property. These limits were based on his insurance agent’s representation they would be sufficient to cover any loss he might have. After accounting for his losses, his policy would cover less than half of the property destroyed by the fire. Brad was one of thousands of Oregonians without sufficient insurance coverage. Unfortunately, these policyholders are generally unaware of their situation until it is too late. Despite trying to make sure they are covered against a tragedy like these fires, they are misled by bad advice from an insurance agent. Brad’s case highlights a desperately needed legislative change in Oregon. In Oregon, there are two types of insurance agents. Insurance brokers work with multiple insurance companies and provide consumers with quotes from a variety of carriers, allowing the insured to purchase the insurance best suited to their needs. Captive agents are insurance agents who sell insurance exclusively for one company. Insurers like Farmers and State Farm almost exclusively use captive agents to sell their products. Thanks to the Oregon Court of Appeals in LewisWilliamson v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co. 39 P.3d 947 (Or. Ct. App. 2002) Oregonians who purchased insurance through a captive agent generally have no recourse against that agent for failing to properly advise them on their insurance needs. In Lewis-Williamson, the court determined while insurance brokers owe a duty to the insureds they sell to, captive agents owe their duty to the insurance carriers they sell for. This means even in cases of extreme professional negligence, a captive agent cannot be sued for giving bad advice because they had no duty to inform the insured properly in the first place. Insurers have taken full advantage of this and routinely advertise their agents are knowledgeable and proficient in writing policies. The insureds of Oregon generally are not aware their agents cannot be held accountable for errors and it is a situation the Oregon Legislature should fix immediately. Steve — rebuilding issues In 2020, Steve was not taking any chances regarding the fires. His wife was ill and needed frequent medical treatments. Not wanting to have to move her suddenly, he set the sprinklers running on his property, said a prayer and evacuated with her long before the notice came down. When he returned, he found his home undamaged but his custom built shop on his property with an extensive amount of woodworking equipment was totally destroyed. Once home, Steve started to rebuild his shop. His insurer was fully cooperative, identifying Steve’s loss has a large and complex one, and assigning him a non-CAT adjuster straight out of the gate. Steve’s issues began when he sought contractors to actually rebuild the shop. Steve, like so many others attempting to rebuild at this time, felt the pressure of economic forces in our region making it very difficult to find a contractor willing to take on the job. After finally finding a contractor, Steve then began to suffer delays associated with supply chain shortages. Steve’s construction project, like all construction projects, had to follow a linear order. In oversimplified terms, the Burned mobile home park from 2020 Almeda Wildfire in Medford area.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTY1NDIzOQ==