Why the FAIR Plan Must Be Held Accountable
When wildfire survivors can't get their insurance documents—despite clear rights under California law—justice must intervene. In Jungwirth v. California FAIR Plan Association, Kerley Schaffer LLP and Edelson PC are not just fighting for one family, but for every California homeowner insured through the FAIR Plan.
This legal battle asks the Court to issue a public injunction: a powerful tool to stop the FAIR Plan’s ongoing violations and enforce Insurance Code § 2071. Here’s how the case meets the legal standard—and why this fight matters to homeowners across the state.
Legal Standard: When Can a Court Grant a Preliminary Injunction?
Under California law, a court considers two factors when deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction:
The likelihood the plaintiff will succeed on the merits, and
The balance of harms—i.e., whether withholding the injunction would cause greater harm than granting it.
(People v. Black Hawk Tobacco, 197 Cal.App.4th 1561)
The Jungwirth case meets both thresholds—clearly and forcefully.
Likelihood of Success: Precedent Is Already Set
California law is unambiguous: Insurance Code § 2071 gives homeowners the right to receive claim-related documents within 15 days of request. These documents include:
Inspection photos
Adjuster narrative reports
Internal communications and valuations
Any third-party data used to evaluate the claim
The FAIR Plan is not just refusing to comply—it’s already lost a lawsuit on this exact issue.
In Ortega v. California FAIR Plan Association (2025), a Fresno County judge ruled that the FAIR Plan's failure to provide these documents violated § 2071. The court issued an injunction and entered a final judgment—which CFPA declined to appeal. That judgment is now binding statewide under the doctrine of collateral estoppel.
Declaratory Relief and the UCL: Strengthening the Case
Beyond the statutory violation, the plaintiffs also seek:
Declaratory relief confirming CFPA’s obligations under § 2071
A public injunction under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) to stop CFPA’s unlawful practices
Because these rights are based on California’s standard fire policy, the outcome will impact all FAIR Plan policyholders, not just those currently suing.
Balance of Harms: The Scale Tips Sharply in Favor of Policyholders
The harm to homeowners is real and ongoing, while the burden on the FAIR Plan is minimal.
Harm to homeowners includes:
Delays in claim resolution
Inability to contest low payouts
Prolonged displacement
Financial and emotional distress
Burden on CFPA:
Simply providing documents it already has
Complying with a statute it's already obligated to follow
An injunction is the only effective remedy to stop the ongoing harm.
Why a Public Injunction Is Necessary
Even if the Jungwirths receive their documents, the problem isn’t solved. The FAIR Plan has:
Complied selectively
Ignored policyholder requests
Repeatedly violated § 2071
This case seeks a statewide public injunction that would:
Notify all FAIR Plan insureds with claims since Jan 1, 2024, of their document rights
Require release of all requested claim documents within 15 days
Establish compliance across all current and future claims
The Bigger Picture: Why This Case Matters
The FAIR Plan was designed to protect vulnerable homeowners. Instead, it has created additional hardship by acting outside the law.
Without accountability, the FAIR Plan’s violations will:
Erode public trust
Delay wildfire recovery
Leave families without recourse
This case is about systemic reform—and restoring the rights homeowners are guaranteed under California law.
If You’re a Policyholder, Take Action
If you're insured through the FAIR Plan and:
Have requested documents but not received them
Are unsure how your claim was evaluated
Have experienced delays or denials
You may have a right to legal action.
Schedule a consultation with Kerley Schaffer LLP to protect your rights.