Hi Margaret,
Thanks for reaching out and for taking the time to lay out the background so clearly. So sorry to hear you are having difficulties.
California’s Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations, § 2695.9 (b) and (c) state: (b) “No insurer shall require that the insured have the property repaired by a specific individual or entity.” Subsection (c) further provides that if an insurer suggests or recommends a repair vendor, and the insured accepts that recommendation, “the insurer shall cause the damaged property to be restored to no less than its condition prior to the loss and repaired in a manner which meets accepted trade standards for good and workmanlike construction at no additional cost to the claimant …”
The NWFA Certified Professionals Hearing Committee findings are indeed key. If the Committee found that the flooring inspector report violated the NWFACP Inspector Code of Conduct, that potentially undercuts the carrier’s continued reliance on that report, particularly after you brought it to their attention. Insurance carriers are required to consider all available evidence in their evaluations, especially those that support coverage.
I am aware of growing scrutiny regarding insurer-managed repair networks and preferred-vendor programs, especially where there are allegations that the insurer controlled or heavily influenced the repair process while later disclaiming responsibility for the outcome. I am not aware of a single coordinated California policyholder initiative specifically focused on these programs, but I have seen attorneys, consumer advocates, and regulatory complaints raising related concerns in individual matters.
Given the facts you outlined – ongoing displacement, storage costs being shifted to you, ALE termination, disputed repair adequacy, and the limitation-period concerns – I think your instinct to treat the timing issues as urgent makes sense. You are also correct that tolling questions in California property claims can become very fact- and policy-specific, and they do not always run as simply as measuring from the original date of loss.
At a minimum, I would continue preserving everything: communications, reports, photographs, invoices, vendor correspondence, ALE communications, and all materials related to the NWFA proceedings.
If you have not already done so, you may also want to consult California counsel with substantial first-party / bad-faith experience, particularly someone familiar with managed-repair disputes and CDI claims-handling regulations.
You may also want to consider submitting or supplementing a complaint with the California Department of Insurance if you believe the handling of the managed-repair process violated California claims-settlement standards.
I cannot provide legal advice regarding filing deadlines or strategy, but I do agree that this issue should be addressed promptly.
Sandy
