California carriers have the legal obligation of good faith and fair dealing with their policyholders. The legal obligation is critically important when evaluating a defendant’s third-party claims. Failure to accept a reasonable offer of settlement, under specified circumstances, is sufficient to form a bad faith claim under CACI No. 2334: Bad Faith (Third Party) — Refusal to Accept Reasonable Settlement Demand Within Liability Policy Limits—Essential Factual Elements.

At KAASS LAW, our attorneys have considerable background knowledge in insurance bad faith disputes, including high-stakes cases where excess judgments threaten the financial security of policyholders. Understanding CACI 2334 and how California courts interpret it is critical for insureds, claimants, and attorneys navigating these complex disputes.

What Is CACI 2334 and Why Does It Matter?

CACI 2334 is a California Civil Jury Instruction. It sets forth the points a party must prove to establish an insurer's bad faith in refusing to settle the case within policy limits. This jury instruction reflects decades of California case law on insurer bad faith and refusal-to-settle claims.

More specifically, CACI 2334 shields policyholders against insurers who unreasonably put them at risk for personal liability for serious damages. Within this context, policyholders are also protected against insurance entities while allowing insurers to make reasonable business and liability decisions, even if they initially reject a settlement offer later approved.

The Essential Factual Elements Under CACI 2334

To establish liability for bad faith under CACI 2334, the plaintiff must prove all of the following:

1. Insurance Policy Coverage: The plaintiff was insured under a liability insurance policy issued by the defendant insurer.
2. Third-Party Claim: A claim was made against the insured by a third party that was covered under the policy.
3. Reasonable Settlement Demand: The third-party claimant made a reasonable demand to settle the claim within policy limits.
4. Insurer Refusal: The insurer failed to accept that settlement demand.
5. Unreasonable Conduct: The refusal was a result of unreasonable conduct. It means the insurer placed its own interests above the insured’s or failed to properly assess the claim.
6. Harm to the Insured: Either (a) a judgment was entered against the insured exceeding the policy limits, or (b) the insurer’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to the insured.

Defining a “Reasonable” Settlement Demand

A demand is considered to be reasonable if, “at the time the insurer decides, it knew or should have known that a potential judgment would likely exceed the settlement demand.” There are several circumstances to consider:

• The nature and extent of the third party’s injuries/ losses
• The likely liability of the insured

Nevertheless, a demand may also be found unreasonable on a basis other than the dollar cost, such as a demand that is unclear, lacks a complete release, or requires an admission of liability, fails to contain a complete release, or asks for an admission of liability.

The Critical Role of “Unreasonable Conduct”

The California courts have held that bad faith is not strict liability. It is not enough that the insurer refuses to accept a reasonable settlement offer. The plaintiff has the burden of proving unreasonable conduct on the part of the insurer by giving at least equal consideration to the insured’s financial interests by giving at least equal consideration to the insured’s financial interests.

Foundational Case Law Supporting CACI 2334

Several landmark California cases underpin CACI 2334:

• Comunale v. Traders & General Ins. Co. (1958) 50 Cal.2d 654 – Established insurers’ duty to consider settlement offers in light of the insured’s interests.
• Crisci v. Security Ins. Co. of New Haven (1967) 66 Cal.2d 425 – Confirmed that unreasonable refusal to settle can constitute bad faith.
• Johansen v. California State Auto. Assn. Inter-Insurance Bureau (1975) 15 Cal.3d 751 – Insurers must evaluate settlement offers as though they alone would bear any excess liability.
• Hamilton v. Maryland Casualty Co. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 718 – Bad faith liability extends to full excess judgments.
• Pinto v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 676 – Reinforced that proof of unreasonable conduct is an essential element.
• Graciano v. Mercury General Corp. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 414 – Clarified what constitutes a sufficiently clear policy-limits demand.

These cases guide how courts evaluate whether an insurer acted reasonably and whether a policyholder may recover an excess judgment resulting from bad faith refusal to settle.

Why These Claims Are Complex

Bad faith claims involving refusal to settle within policy limits are often fact-intensive:

• Timing of the settlement demand and the insurer’s response
• Internal communications and claim-handling practices
• Evaluation of liability risk and damages
• Decision-making rationale and justification

The fact that the court will require evidence of unreasonable conduct means that these cases usually involve extensive document review, deposition testimony, and expert analysis. That is why early consultation with skilled counsel is critical.

How KAASS LAW Can Help

At KAASS LAW, our attorneys provide comprehensive guidance for clients facing excess judgments due to insurer bad faith. Our services include:

1. Early Case Evaluation

We assess settlement demand history, insurer responses, and policy limits to determine whether a CACI 2334 claim exists and evaluate the potential strength of the case.

2. Evidence Collection and Analysis

We gather and preserve adjuster files, communications, internal reports, and other critical documentation, which is essential to proving unreasonable conduct.

3. Strategic Counseling and Negotiation

We guide clients on negotiation, potential assignment of rights, and litigation strategy, helping maximize recovery while minimizing risk.

4. Trial-Ready Representation

If litigation is necessary, our attorneys are prepared to litigate aggressively in court, relying on jury instructions such as CACI 2334 to present a compelling case for damages exceeding policy limits.

Key Takeaways for Policyholders and Claimants

The case of CACI 2334 protects policyholders against insurers who do not reasonably refuse to settle claims within policy limits, which might result in an excess judgment. A bad faith case cannot be won merely on the aspect of refusal to settle a claim. There has to be substantial evidence of bad faith on the part of the insurance company if it has put its interests before those of the policyholder. The sooner a policyholder understands this, the better, as it has a bearing on future policyholder losses.
Engaging experienced bad faith insurance attorneys immediately after the rejection of a settlement demand can make all the difference. Experienced attorneys can assist in determining whether the denial of the settlement demand constitutes a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, help in the collection of evidence of unreasonable conduct on the part of the insurance company, or provide advice regarding complex litigation or settlement strategies. An attorney’s familiarity with the elements of CACI 2334 can be the determining factor in whether a policyholder can collect an excess judgment or not.

Contact KAASS LAW Today

If your insurer refused a reasonable settlement demand, leaving you exposed to an excess judgment, KAASS LAW can help. Our attorneys have extensive experience representing policyholders in bad faith refusal-to-settle cases, protecting their financial interests and holding insurers accountable. Contact us and learn how we can evaluate your potential claim under CACI 2334. Do not wait, since early action is critical in insurance bad faith cases.

​

Wildfires have become a devastating and regular part of California life. Unfortunately, for many homeowners, the flames aren't the only threat—they’re also battling their own insurance companies. A recent case involving USAA, one of the nation’s largest insurers, reveals the growing problem of insurance fraud and bad faith conduct in wildfire claims.

At KAASS LAW, we believe homeowners deserve transparency, fair treatment, and full compensation when disaster strikes. In this article, we explore how insurance fraud impacts wildfire victims, what legal rights you have, and how to take action if your claim was mishandled.

What Happened in the USAA California Wildfire Case?

A recent lawsuit filed in California alleges that USAA engaged in fraud and acted in bad faith when processing wildfire claims. According to the suit, the insurer:

• Delayed claim payments
• Offered settlements far below actual losses
• Misrepresented coverage terms
• Ignored crucial evidence of damage

These tactics left policyholders without the funds they needed to rebuild their lives. Such actions, if proven, fall under insurance fraud and breach of contract, both of which can carry serious legal consequences.

What Is Insurance Fraud by an Insurer?

When most people think of insurance fraud, they imagine policyholders making false claims. However, insurers can also commit fraud, typically in the form of:

• Denying valid claims without reason
• Misleading policyholders about coverage
• Falsifying claim evaluations
• Purposely undervaluing damage

In wildfire cases, insurance companies might say the damage isn't covered, undervalue total loss, or delay payments until victims settle out of desperation. These tactics are not only unethical—they’re illegal.

California Law Protects Against Bad Faith and Insurance Fraud

Under California Insurance Code § 790.03, insurers must act fairly and in good faith. Violating this law can result in civil penalties and open the door for lawsuits based on:

• Breach of contract
• Bad faith insurance practices
• Fraud and misrepresentation
• Emotional distress damages

Victims can sue for more than just the unpaid claim—they may also be entitled to punitive damages and attorney’s fees.

Signs of Bad Faith in Wildfire Insurance Claims

If you've filed a claim after a wildfire and noticed any of the following, your insurer may be acting in bad faith:

• They don’t return your calls or emails
• Your claim is denied without explanation
• You receive inadequate offers compared to the actual loss
• Adjusters fail to inspect your property thoroughly
• You're asked for excessive documentation or paperwork

If this sounds familiar, it’s time to consult a lawyer.

Your Rights as a California Homeowner After a Wildfire

California homeowners have the right to:

• Receive full coverage based on their policy terms
• Prompt claim processing
• Clear explanations of claim decisions
• Appeal or dispute low settlement offers
• File a lawsuit for bad faith or fraud

You do not have to accept your insurer’s first offer. You have legal tools to fight back and demand what’s fair.

For more details, visit the California Department of Insurance Wildfire Resource Guide.

How KAASS LAW Can Help with Insurance Fraud Claims

At KAASS LAW, we help wildfire victims get the compensation they deserve—especially when their insurance company fails them. Here’s how we can assist:

• Review your policy to determine coverage
• Gather evidence of damage and correspondence
• Negotiate directly with insurers
• File a bad faith or fraud lawsuit when necessary

Our attorneys are skilled in both insurance litigation and wildfire damage claims, giving you the advantage you need to fight large insurers like USAA.

Real-Life Consequences of Insurer Misconduct

In the USAA case, families were left struggling to recover while waiting for delayed or denied payouts. These delays are not just inconvenient—they can be catastrophic. Without funds for repairs, homeowners face:

• Uninhabitable homes
• Financial ruin
• Mental and emotional trauma
• Unsafe temporary housing

Justice isn't just about money—it's about holding insurance companies accountable when they act dishonestly.

What Damages Can You Recover in an Insurance Fraud Lawsuit?

If your insurer has acted in bad faith, you may be able to recover:

• The full value of your claim
• Additional living expenses
• Emotional distress damages
• Punitive damages (to punish fraud)
• Attorney’s fees and costs

At KAASS LAW, we help calculate the total impact of your losses so you can seek maximum compensation.

Next Steps: Protect Yourself and Your Property

If your home has been damaged in a wildfire and you believe your insurer is not acting fairly:

1. Document everything – Emails, letters, damage photos, etc.
2. Do not sign anything until your lawyer reviews it
3. Contact a qualified attorney immediately

We’re here to protect your rights, advocate on your behalf, and ensure that insurance fraud does not go unchecked.

Stand Up Against Insurance Fraud

If your insurance company delays, denies, or undervalues your wildfire claim, you’re not alone. Cases like the USAA lawsuit show that even trusted insurers can fail to uphold their responsibilities. At KAASS LAW, we are committed to standing up for California homeowners who have suffered enough.

Call us today for a free consultation. Let’s make sure you get the support and compensation you deserve—no matter what challenges you face.

Why Is an Insurance Company Liable For the Actions of Contractors?

Many insurance companies, including Old Republic Home Insurance, work with independent contractors. The insurance company sends these professionals to the insured's home to repair the effects of:

• Fires
• Floods
• Breakdowns

However, if a contractor behaves unprofessionally or causes damage, the customer loses confidence in the insurance system itself. Although insurers claim that they are not liable for the actions of third parties, practice shows otherwise. If a company selects a contractor without due diligence and ignores obvious risks, it can be held liable for negligence.

What is Negligent Hiring?

Under California civil law, negligent hiring occurs when a company fails to exercise due diligence. Even though it had a duty to do so. For example, if the contractor:

• Did not have a valid license
• Had complaints
• Had a criminal record

But was hired to do the work anyway. Recent cases, such as Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc. for damages caused by performers when they fail to provide the proper screening process. This applies not only to transportation services, but also to the insurance industry.

How Does This Relate to The Shear Economy?

The platform economy model assumes that large companies only act as intermediaries between performers and customers. Such an arrangement is convenient and reduces costs. But it creates a legal vacuum. Old Republic Home Insurance, by contracting with contractors, cannot absolve itself of its duty to vet them. This is confirmed by materials published by Cornell Law School which states that negligent screening is an independent cause of action.

When Is a Company Truly Liable?

In order to prove the insurance company's liability, the injured person must prove that:

• The company had a duty to protect the customer's interests
• It breached that duty by allowing a substandard contractor to perform the work
• It caused direct damage
• The damage was a foreseeable consequence of that breach.

For example, if a contractor damaged electrical wiring that caused a fire, a claim could be made against the insurance company. Citing negligent supervision and lack of proper inspection.

What Should Injured Clients Do?

If you have been injured by a contractor referred by Old Republic Home Insurance, you should contact an attorney immediately. He or she will help you to:

• Document your damages
• Obtain documents proving the contractor's connection to the company
• File a claim for negligence
• Seek compensation.

In addition to going to court, clients are advised to file complaints with the California Department of Insurance. Which regulates insurance companies.

What Arguments Does the Defense Typically Use? 

Insurance company representatives often rely on the fact that contractors act independently. However, this in no way relieves them of liability. If the company itself selected the contractor and controlled the progress of the work. It is also important to note that companies can claim that the damage was caused by the client's own fault. However, practice shows that courts carefully examine the context:

• Whether there have been previous complaints against the contractor
• Whether the contractor was licensed, insured and qualified

If the insurance company knew of the risks but ignored them, it will be at fault.

What Should Insurance Companies Do?

To reduce the risk of lawsuits, insurance companies should:

• Set strict standards for contractor selection
• Strictly require valid licenses and insurance
• Review recalls and lawsuits against contractors
• Conduct a service quality review at least once a year, preferably twice a year

It is also advisable to include indemnification clauses in contracts with contractors. in the event of lawsuits related to their actions.

Case Law in California

There have been cases in California where courts have found insurance companies liable for the actions of substandard contractors. For example, in a Los Angeles case, a client was seriously injured when a ceiling repaired by a contractor collapsed. The court found that the insurer failed to verify that the contractor had a construction license and awarded more than $250,000 in damages. This situation illustrates the importance of not only entering into a contract, but also being held accountable for its performance. Make sure contractors have the proper paperwork and licenses to protect other people from getting hurt. It is also important to realize that a contractor's negligence may be the basis for a civil lawsuit. As discussed in the KAASS LAW article.

Conclusion 

Old Republic Home Insurance, like other insurance companies, has a responsibility to protect its customers. Not just on paper, but in reality. Failure to properly vet the contractors it works with can result in:

• Loss of reputation
• Six-figure lawsuits

Victims should not face defenselessness or silence. Contact KAASS LAW if you have been in a similar situation where you have suffered because of an unlicensed contractor. Having evidence of negligence in hiring contractors can be an important factor in successfully recovering compensation.

Recent lawsuits in California accuse major insurers of insurance collusion, limiting coverage options for homeowners living in wildfire-prone areas. These lawsuits claim that insurance companies worked together to restrict available policies, raise premiums, and force consumers into expensive, inadequate insurance plans.

At KAASS LAW, we stand with California residents against unfair insurance practices. If you believe insurance companies harmed you through anti-competitive actions, we are ready to advocate for your rights.

What the Insurance Collusion Lawsuits Allege

Homeowners in high wildfire risk areas, including parts of Northern and Southern California, allege that insurers systematically withdrew from local markets. Instead of competing fairly, companies allegedly communicated directly or through shared industry platforms to limit consumer choices and inflate premiums.

The lawsuits argue that insurance collusion allowed companies to avoid market competition and artificially raise prices, violating California’s strict consumer protection laws.

Key Allegations Include:

• Coordinated Non-Renewals: Multiple insurers canceled policies in the same neighborhoods around the same time, leaving homeowners few alternatives.
• Artificial Premium Inflation: Companies allegedly used shared risk models to justify raising premiums across the board.
• Steering Toward Limited Options: Insurers pushed homeowners into costly surplus lines insurance, offering less protection.

If proven, these actions could open the door for homeowners to recover financial damages and demand systemic changes.

Why Insurance Collusion Matters

Insurance collusion damages consumers by reducing competition, driving up prices, and limiting policy options. In a state struggling with devastating wildfires, these unfair practices leave families vulnerable and financially strained.

When insurance companies collude rather than compete, they break California’s trust and legal obligations. Homeowners facing inflated rates and poor coverage suffer real consequences, especially when wildfires threaten their properties.

At KAASS LAW, we work tirelessly to hold insurers accountable for unlawful business practices that hurt our communities.

Legal Protections Against Insurance Collusion

California law offers strong protections for consumers harmed by insurance collusion. Homeowners can pursue legal remedies under:

• California Business and Professions Code Section 17200: Prohibits unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices.
• The Cartwright Act: Outlaws price-fixing, market allocation, and other forms of collusion.
• Insurance Code Regulations: Require insurers to treat policyholders fairly and in good faith.

Victims can file claims seeking compensation for financial losses, emotional distress, and punitive damages where appropriate.

Signs You May Be Affected by Insurance Collusion

You might recognize signs of insurance collusion if you experienced:

• Non-renewal notices from multiple insurers within a short time frame
• Unexplained, large premium hikes without individualized assessments
• Limited coverage options are forcing you into expensive surplus lines
• Identical explanations from different insurers for coverage denials

If these situations sound familiar, you could have grounds for legal action.

How KAASS LAW Can Help Victims of Insurance Collusion

At KAASS LAW, we have deep experience in civil litigation, insurance disputes, and consumer protection cases. Our legal team can:

• Review your insurance documents and communications
• Identify patterns of collusion affecting your policies
• File lawsuits against insurers that violated your rights
• Seek damages and policy corrections on your behalf

We know how to fight powerful insurance companies, and we remain committed to protecting homeowners like you from unfair practices.

Visit the California Department of Insurance’s website to learn more about your consumer rights.

What Homeowners Should Do Now

If you suspect you were harmed by insurance collusion, you should:

• Gather Documentation: Save insurance notices, premium statements, and emails from your insurer.
• Record Important Events: Keep a timeline of policy changes, cancellations, and rate hikes.
• Seek Legal Help Quickly: Speak with an attorney before evidence becomes harder to collect.

Acting quickly strengthens your case and protects your rights.

Legal Remedies Available to Affected Homeowners

All homeowners who face damage from insurance scheme collusion may seek legal relief through California state laws. Homeowners who become victims of insurance collusion have three main options: they can file financial compensation claims, get fair access to insurance products, and request immediate cessation of prohibited practices.

A class action lawsuit becomes available as a remedy option for widespread harm demonstrated by multiple homeowners. Homeowners who seek help from KAASS LAW benefit from attorneys who provide both claim assessment and build insurance company defense cases. Insurers must face accountability because tracking them down serves to assist both claimants through recovery and to prevent future schemes between insurers. Our legal team provides individual guidance for any cases where you believe insurance collusion influenced your policies or costs.

The Legal Assistance from KAASS LAW Supports Your Fight

KAASS LAW stands ready to help clients who face the daunting task of dealing with large insurance corporations. Consumer protection cases are our attorneys' area of expertise, particularly those related to insurance collusion. The law firm utilizes a comprehensive insurer investigation to gather facts while aggressively defending its clients’ rights. We make every effort towards securing optimal results for homeowners through our approach that includes negotiations, litigation, and class action participation. Receive priority protection of your home against financial instability with our services. Contact KAASS LAW for a consultation to get expert advice about pursuing legal action against an insurance company's wrongdoing.

Contact KAASS LAW for Help

Insurance companies must not use California’s wildfire crisis to justify anti-consumer behavior. Allegations of insurance collusion demand a strong legal response to safeguard the public and restore fairness in the insurance market.

If you received abrupt cancellation notices, suffered unreasonable premium increases, or suspect coordinated actions by insurers, reach out to KAASS LAW today. We are ready to review your case, fight for your rights, and pursue the compensation you deserve.