Loading
Insurance
9 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Insurance, Appraisal & Valuation, Industrial Hygiene, Environmental Science, Analytical Chemistry, Property Damage, Property Insurance, Wildfire
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
Federal. Ninth Circuit
Pollock v. Federal Insurance Company, No. 21-cv-09975-JCS, is a federal insurance case involving homeowners Thomas Pollock and Eileen Tabios and Federal Insurance Company, referred to in portions of the litigation as Chubb. The dispute followed the September 27, 2020 Glass Fire, which reached the homeowners' property in St. Helena, California. The guest house was destroyed, and Pollock and Tabios alleged that smoke, heat, combustion products, chemicals, and other fire-related conditions also damaged the main residence and other structures. Their original lawsuit asserted breach of contract, declaratory relief, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and negligence. They later amended the complaint to add a Financial Elder Abuse claim and expand certain existing theories.
A central dispute concerned the cause and extent of the claimed damage and the cost of restoring the property. A court-ordered appraisal valued repairs to the man-made structures at $32,122,214.15 and separately identified $1,048,215.43 in investigation and preconstruction costs. In November 2024, the court left the structural valuation intact but vacated the separate award for investigation and preconstruction expenses. Litigation continued over contamination, causation, insurance coverage, expert evidence, and the homeowners' remaining claims.
The Glass Fire reached Pollock and Tabios's property in St. Helena and destroyed the guest house. The homeowners alleged that smoke, soot, ash, combustion by-products, volatile organic compounds, and other substances also affected the main residence and other parts of the property. Their insurance claim developed into a dispute over the extent of physical damage, the source of conditions identified within the structures, and the work required to restore them.
Pollock and Tabios filed suit against Federal Insurance Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint asserted breach of contract, declaratory relief, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and negligence. The claims addressed insurance coverage, claim handling, and allegations concerning the adequacy of insurance coverage maintained on the property.
Federal moved to dismiss and strike portions of the complaint. The insurer argued, among other things, that the dispute was premature because its investigation remained underway and the homeowners had not completed certain obligations under the policy. U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero denied the motion, allowing the homeowners' claims to proceed.
Judge Spero granted the homeowners' motion to compel appraisal. The appraisal covered losses involving the property's man-made structures but excluded soil, landscaping, contents, and loss of use. The panel's assignment was to determine the amount of loss within that scope rather than resolve the parties' broader insurance coverage disputes.
The court stayed the litigation while the appraisal process moved forward. This allowed the panel to evaluate the cost of restoring the covered structures within the court-defined appraisal scope while other disputed issues remained for later proceedings.
Following inspections and related investigation, the appraisal panel held a five-day hearing concerning the claimed structural loss. Robert Bresee served as the homeowners' selected appraiser, James Wilson served as Federal's selected appraiser, and retired Judge Charlotte Walter Woolard served as umpire. The hearing addressed the cost of returning the man-made structures to their pre-loss condition.
The appraisal panel determined that restoring the man-made structures to their pre-loss condition would cost $32,122,214.15. It estimated a 36-month construction period and separately identified $1,048,215.43 in investigation and preconstruction costs. Soil, landscaping, contents, and loss of use remained outside the appraisal's assigned scope.
Federal challenged the appraisal award and the panel's authority. Judge Spero preserved the $32,122,214.15 structural valuation but vacated the separate $1,048,215.43 award for investigation and preconstruction expenses. Questions remained concerning whether particular property conditions resulted from the Glass Fire and whether the policy covered the claimed losses. Federal's then-existing counterclaim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was dismissed without leave to amend.
Judge Spero granted the homeowners leave to file a First Amended and Supplemental Complaint. The amended pleading continued their breach-of-contract, declaratory-relief, bad-faith, and negligence claims while adding a Financial Elder Abuse claim. It also expanded portions of the negligence and bad-faith allegations.
Fact and expert discovery continued during 2025 as the parties developed competing evidence concerning environmental conditions, contamination, cleaning, remediation, structural restoration, causation, and insurance practices. Plaintiffs designated experts including Dr. William Mills, Dr. Bernard Crimmins, Dawn Bolstad-Johnson, Christopher Nutter, and Neal Bordenave. Their proposed testimony addressed scientific, construction, causation, and insurance issues raised by the disputed property damage.
Judge Spero issued an order addressing Federal's summary judgment motion, the homeowners' partial summary judgment motion, and challenges to several plaintiff experts. The court determined that VOCs allegedly released by the Glass Fire were not excluded as environmental pollution under the policy's contamination exclusion as a matter of law. Factual disputes remained over the alleged VOC and SVOC contamination, its source, and whether the conditions constituted physical loss or damage.
The court admitted some proposed expert opinions while limiting or excluding others. Federal's fraud and breach-of-contract counterclaims and related affirmative defenses were dismissed with prejudice. Factual disputes also prevented summary judgment on the homeowners' bad-faith and Financial Elder Abuse claims.
The negligence claim continued only in part. The court allowed the theory concerning underinsurance and whether MIV acted as Federal's agent to proceed but granted Federal summary judgment on the separate negligence theory involving loss reserves. The court also ruled that recovery for damage to the man-made structures could not exceed the appraisal's $32,122,214.15 replacement-cost valuation and capped recovery for land damage at $3,212,221.42.
Court:
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Case Name:
Pollock v. Federal Insurance Company
Homeowners Insurance
Insurance Claims
Insurance Coverage
Fire Insurance
Environmental Contamination
Environmental Sampling
Environmental Remediation
Indoor Air Quality
Pollock v. Federal Insurance Company, No. 21-cv-09975-JCS, is a federal insurance case involving homeowners Thomas Pollock and Eileen Tabios and Federal Insurance Company, referred to in portions of the litigation as Chubb. The dispute followed the September 27, 2020 Glass Fire, which reached the homeowners' property in St. Helena, California. The guest house was destroyed, and Pollock and Tabios alleged that smoke, heat, combustion products, chemicals, and other fire-related conditions also damaged the main residence and other structures. Their original lawsuit asserted breach of contract, declaratory relief, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and negligence. They later amended the complaint to add a Financial Elder Abuse claim and expand certain existing theories.
A central dispute concerned the cause and extent of the claimed damage and the cost of restoring the property. A court-ordered appraisal valued repairs to the man-made structures at $32,122,214.15 and separately identified $1,048,215.43 in investigation and preconstruction costs. In November 2024, the court left the structural valuation intact but vacated the separate award for investigation and preconstruction expenses. Litigation continued over contamination, causation, insurance coverage, expert evidence, and the homeowners' remaining claims.
The Glass Fire reached Pollock and Tabios's property in St. Helena and destroyed the guest house. The homeowners alleged that smoke, soot, ash, combustion by-products, volatile organic compounds, and other substances also affected the main residence and other parts of the property. Their insurance claim developed into a dispute over the extent of physical damage, the source of conditions identified within the structures, and the work required to restore them.
Pollock and Tabios filed suit against Federal Insurance Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint asserted breach of contract, declaratory relief, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and negligence. The claims addressed insurance coverage, claim handling, and allegations concerning the adequacy of insurance coverage maintained on the property.
Federal moved to dismiss and strike portions of the complaint. The insurer argued, among other things, that the dispute was premature because its investigation remained underway and the homeowners had not completed certain obligations under the policy. U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero denied the motion, allowing the homeowners' claims to proceed.
Judge Spero granted the homeowners' motion to compel appraisal. The appraisal covered losses involving the property's man-made structures but excluded soil, landscaping, contents, and loss of use. The panel's assignment was to determine the amount of loss within that scope rather than resolve the parties' broader insurance coverage disputes.
The court stayed the litigation while the appraisal process moved forward. This allowed the panel to evaluate the cost of restoring the covered structures within the court-defined appraisal scope while other disputed issues remained for later proceedings.
Following inspections and related investigation, the appraisal panel held a five-day hearing concerning the claimed structural loss. Robert Bresee served as the homeowners' selected appraiser, James Wilson served as Federal's selected appraiser, and retired Judge Charlotte Walter Woolard served as umpire. The hearing addressed the cost of returning the man-made structures to their pre-loss condition.
The appraisal panel determined that restoring the man-made structures to their pre-loss condition would cost $32,122,214.15. It estimated a 36-month construction period and separately identified $1,048,215.43 in investigation and preconstruction costs. Soil, landscaping, contents, and loss of use remained outside the appraisal's assigned scope.
Federal challenged the appraisal award and the panel's authority. Judge Spero preserved the $32,122,214.15 structural valuation but vacated the separate $1,048,215.43 award for investigation and preconstruction expenses. Questions remained concerning whether particular property conditions resulted from the Glass Fire and whether the policy covered the claimed losses. Federal's then-existing counterclaim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was dismissed without leave to amend.
Judge Spero granted the homeowners leave to file a First Amended and Supplemental Complaint. The amended pleading continued their breach-of-contract, declaratory-relief, bad-faith, and negligence claims while adding a Financial Elder Abuse claim. It also expanded portions of the negligence and bad-faith allegations.
Fact and expert discovery continued during 2025 as the parties developed competing evidence concerning environmental conditions, contamination, cleaning, remediation, structural restoration, causation, and insurance practices. Plaintiffs designated experts including Dr. William Mills, Dr. Bernard Crimmins, Dawn Bolstad-Johnson, Christopher Nutter, and Neal Bordenave. Their proposed testimony addressed scientific, construction, causation, and insurance issues raised by the disputed property damage.
Judge Spero issued an order addressing Federal's summary judgment motion, the homeowners' partial summary judgment motion, and challenges to several plaintiff experts. The court determined that VOCs allegedly released by the Glass Fire were not excluded as environmental pollution under the policy's contamination exclusion as a matter of law. Factual disputes remained over the alleged VOC and SVOC contamination, its source, and whether the conditions constituted physical loss or damage.
The court admitted some proposed expert opinions while limiting or excluding others. Federal's fraud and breach-of-contract counterclaims and related affirmative defenses were dismissed with prejudice. Factual disputes also prevented summary judgment on the homeowners' bad-faith and Financial Elder Abuse claims.
The negligence claim continued only in part. The court allowed the theory concerning underinsurance and whether MIV acted as Federal's agent to proceed but granted Federal summary judgment on the separate negligence theory involving loss reserves. The court also ruled that recovery for damage to the man-made structures could not exceed the appraisal's $32,122,214.15 replacement-cost valuation and capped recovery for land damage at $3,212,221.42.
Dawn Bolstad-Johnson conducted site investigations and testing after the Glass Fire. Her work addressed airborne chemicals, environmental sampling, alleged contamination, and conditions relevant to proposed remediation at the property.
Dr. William Mills, an environmental scientist and certified industrial hygienist, analyzed wildfire effects and environmental conditions at the property. His work included air-monitoring data, VOC findings, and comparisons involving the Glass Fire and earlier fire events.
Dr. Bernard Crimmins addressed wildfire smoke chemistry and chemical residues. His analysis considered combustion products, chemical pathways, and the alleged movement of fire-related compounds into structural materials.
Licensed architect Christopher Nutter reviewed structural documentation, inspected the property, and considered proposed cleaning, repair, and reconstruction plans. His work covered repair scopes, construction methods, and approaches to restoring affected structures.
Neal Bordenave addressed insurance underwriting practices based on his industry experience. The court later excluded portions of his proposed testimony concerning claims-adjustment practices after finding that those subjects fell outside the expertise demonstrated for his opinions.
The appraisal evaluated the cost of restoring the property's man-made structures within the scope established by the court. Soil, landscaping, contents, and loss of use were excluded from that proceeding. Questions concerning the source of particular conditions and the insurer's ultimate obligations continued in the litigation.
Pollock and Tabios alleged that volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, smoke residues, soot, ash, and other substances affected the property's air and building materials. Federal disputed the source, extent, testing, and effects of those conditions. The parties developed competing scientific evidence concerning whether the Glass Fire caused the alleged contamination and whether it resulted in physical property damage.
The dispute also addressed what work would be required to return the man-made structures to their pre-loss condition. Architectural and construction evidence considered cleaning, repair, replacement, reconstruction methods, and the anticipated duration of the work. The appraisal panel ultimately estimated a 36-month construction period.
Federal challenged several plaintiff experts under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert. The disputes involved qualifications, methodology, supporting data, the scope of proposed opinions, and testimony that risked crossing into legal conclusions. In July 2026, the court admitted some opinions while restricting or excluding others.
The July 2026 summary judgment ruling established monetary limits for certain categories of property damage. Recovery for the man-made structures could not exceed the appraisal's $32,122,214.15 replacement-cost figure, while recovery for land damage was capped at $3,212,221.42. Other disputed issues remained for further proceedings.
Pollock v. Federal Insurance Company developed from a Glass Fire property claim into litigation involving structural valuation, alleged chemical contamination, insurance coverage, and competing expert evidence. The court-ordered appraisal produced a $32,122,214.15 valuation for restoring the man-made structures, and the court later preserved that amount while eliminating the separate award for investigation and preconstruction expenses.
By July 2026, the court had resolved several counterclaims, negligence theories, expert challenges, and damages issues while leaving other factual disputes unresolved. Remaining questions concerned the origin and extent of the alleged property damage, the homeowners' bad-faith and Financial Elder Abuse claims, portions of the negligence claim, and Federal's obligations under the policy.
How much did the appraisal value repairs to the man-made structures?
The appraisal panel valued repairs to the man-made structures at $32,122,214.15. The court later preserved that structural valuation while vacating a separate $1,048,215.43 amount for investigation and preconstruction expenses.
What parts of the property were outside the appraisal?
The appraisal did not cover soil, landscaping, contents, or loss of use. Its court-defined scope focused on the amount required to restore the property's man-made structures.
What VOCs and SVOCs were at issue in the Glass Fire dispute?
The homeowners alleged that volatile organic compounds and semi-volatile organic compounds, along with smoke-related residues and other combustion products, affected the property after the fire. Federal disputed their source, extent, and effect, and factual questions concerning the alleged contamination remained after the July 2026 ruling.
How long did the appraisal panel estimate reconstruction would take?
The appraisal panel estimated a 36-month construction period for the structural restoration work within its assigned scope. That estimate formed part of the panel's March 2024 valuation process.
What did the July 2026 ruling decide about property damage recovery?
The court ruled that recovery for damage to the man-made structures could not exceed $32,122,214.15, the replacement-cost figure established by the appraisal. It separately capped recovery for land damage at $3,212,221.42 while leaving other factual and coverage disputes unresolved.
Dawn Bolstad-Johnson conducted site investigations and testing after the Glass Fire. Her work addressed airborne chemicals, environmental sampling, alleged contamination, and conditions relevant to proposed remediation at the property.
Dr. William Mills, an environmental scientist and certified industrial hygienist, analyzed wildfire effects and environmental conditions at the property. His work included air-monitoring data, VOC findings, and comparisons involving the Glass Fire and earlier fire events.
Dr. Bernard Crimmins addressed wildfire smoke chemistry and chemical residues. His analysis considered combustion products, chemical pathways, and the alleged movement of fire-related compounds into structural materials.
Licensed architect Christopher Nutter reviewed structural documentation, inspected the property, and considered proposed cleaning, repair, and reconstruction plans. His work covered repair scopes, construction methods, and approaches to restoring affected structures.
Neal Bordenave addressed insurance underwriting practices based on his industry experience. The court later excluded portions of his proposed testimony concerning claims-adjustment practices after finding that those subjects fell outside the expertise demonstrated for his opinions.
The appraisal evaluated the cost of restoring the property's man-made structures within the scope established by the court. Soil, landscaping, contents, and loss of use were excluded from that proceeding. Questions concerning the source of particular conditions and the insurer's ultimate obligations continued in the litigation.
Pollock and Tabios alleged that volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, smoke residues, soot, ash, and other substances affected the property's air and building materials. Federal disputed the source, extent, testing, and effects of those conditions. The parties developed competing scientific evidence concerning whether the Glass Fire caused the alleged contamination and whether it resulted in physical property damage.
The dispute also addressed what work would be required to return the man-made structures to their pre-loss condition. Architectural and construction evidence considered cleaning, repair, replacement, reconstruction methods, and the anticipated duration of the work. The appraisal panel ultimately estimated a 36-month construction period.
Federal challenged several plaintiff experts under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert. The disputes involved qualifications, methodology, supporting data, the scope of proposed opinions, and testimony that risked crossing into legal conclusions. In July 2026, the court admitted some opinions while restricting or excluding others.
The July 2026 summary judgment ruling established monetary limits for certain categories of property damage. Recovery for the man-made structures could not exceed the appraisal's $32,122,214.15 replacement-cost figure, while recovery for land damage was capped at $3,212,221.42. Other disputed issues remained for further proceedings.
Pollock v. Federal Insurance Company developed from a Glass Fire property claim into litigation involving structural valuation, alleged chemical contamination, insurance coverage, and competing expert evidence. The court-ordered appraisal produced a $32,122,214.15 valuation for restoring the man-made structures, and the court later preserved that amount while eliminating the separate award for investigation and preconstruction expenses.
By July 2026, the court had resolved several counterclaims, negligence theories, expert challenges, and damages issues while leaving other factual disputes unresolved. Remaining questions concerned the origin and extent of the alleged property damage, the homeowners' bad-faith and Financial Elder Abuse claims, portions of the negligence claim, and Federal's obligations under the policy.
How much did the appraisal value repairs to the man-made structures?
The appraisal panel valued repairs to the man-made structures at $32,122,214.15. The court later preserved that structural valuation while vacating a separate $1,048,215.43 amount for investigation and preconstruction expenses.
What parts of the property were outside the appraisal?
The appraisal did not cover soil, landscaping, contents, or loss of use. Its court-defined scope focused on the amount required to restore the property's man-made structures.
What VOCs and SVOCs were at issue in the Glass Fire dispute?
The homeowners alleged that volatile organic compounds and semi-volatile organic compounds, along with smoke-related residues and other combustion products, affected the property after the fire. Federal disputed their source, extent, and effect, and factual questions concerning the alleged contamination remained after the July 2026 ruling.
How long did the appraisal panel estimate reconstruction would take?
The appraisal panel estimated a 36-month construction period for the structural restoration work within its assigned scope. That estimate formed part of the panel's March 2024 valuation process.
What did the July 2026 ruling decide about property damage recovery?
The court ruled that recovery for damage to the man-made structures could not exceed $32,122,214.15, the replacement-cost figure established by the appraisal. It separately capped recovery for land damage at $3,212,221.42 while leaving other factual and coverage disputes unresolved.
Homeowners Insurance
Insurance Claims
Insurance Coverage
Fire Insurance
Environmental Contamination
Environmental Sampling
Environmental Remediation
Indoor Air Quality
Insurance
Actuarial, +4
Insurance
Insurance, +4
Insurance