Hawaii
Judge’s ruling bars insurers from going after defendants who agreed to $4 billion wildfire settlement
HONOLULU (AP) — A Maui judge’s ruling Tuesday resolves a critical roadblock to finalizing a $4 billion wildfire settlement: Insurance companies who have paid out more than $2 billion in claims can seek reimbursement only from the settlement amount defendants, who victims blame for causing the deadly tragedy, have agreed to pay.
Lawyers representing plaintiffs in hundreds of lawsuits over the deaths and destruction caused by the fires asked the judge to bar insurers from bringing independent legal action to recoup the money paid to policyholders. Preventing insurers from going after the defendants is a key settlement term.
The settlement was reached earlier this month, days before the one-year anniversary of the the fires, amid fears that Hawaiian Electric, the power company that some blame for sparking the blaze, could be on the brink of bankruptcy. Other defendants include Maui County and large landowners.
The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is investigating the Aug. 8, 2023, fires that killed 102 people, destroyed the historic downtown area of Lahaina, burned thousands of homes and displaced 12,000 people.
Plaintiff lawyers were worried allowing insurers to pursue reimbursement separately would be a deal-breaker, drain what is available to pay fire victims and lead to prolonged litigation.
A group of more than 160 property and casualty insurers that have so far paid more than $2.34 billion to people and businesses devastated by the fires remained as holdouts to the settlement.
Jesse Creed, an attorney serving as one of four liaisons for the coordination of the plaintiffs’ lawsuits, told Cahill the insurers want to get court judgements for enormous damages, “and leave a carcass for the plaintiffs.”
Insurer lawyers argued in court filings that what they called the rush to push through a settlement deprives the insurers of their due process.
The insurance industry has been unfairly villainized as outsiders taking resources from the community while those responsible for the fires won’t be held accountable, Vincent Raboteau, an attorney representing the insurers, told the judge.
“And we’re not arguing to be first in line for anything,” he said. “It’s always been our position that individual plaintiffs should get the lion’s share.
After the hearing, Raboteau declined to comment on Cahill’s ruling and wouldn’t say whether they plan to seek review of Cahill’s ruling by the Hawaii Supreme Court.
“We humbly ask the mainland subrogation attorneys to accept what Judge Cahill has made clear, which is no one should stand in the way of our people’s full recovery,” Gov. Josh Green said in a statement Tuesday night. “The world has changed as a result of climate forces, and we need to work together - states, insurers, attorneys - to create better ways for people to settle differences so they can address risks and recover when necessary.”
Jake Lowenthal, another liaison attorney for the plaintiffs, said they are heartened by Cahill’s ruling.
“This is going to be a critical part in reaching a final resolution of everyone’s claims as well as resolving the insurance companies’ potential rights of reimbursement,” he said.
New York
Proposed amendment lacks one word that could drive voter turnout: ‘abortion’
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — A proposed amendment to New York’s constitution meant to protect abortion access is a crucial part of Democrats’ plans to drive voter turnout in the state this fall and potentially flip vital congressional districts.
But there could be a problem: The ballot question doesn’t mention the word “abortion.”
Arguments began Wednesday over a lawsuit Democrats hope will force election officials to include the term in an explanation of the amendment that voters will see when casting their ballots.
The unusual legal effort begins weeks after the state Board of Elections chose late last month to use the measure’s technical language verbatim rather than interpret it in its explanation to voters.
Filed in state Supreme Court in Albany, the lawsuit argues that the board’s description violates a state law requiring ballot questions to be written in plain language that’s easy to understand — but that’s where things get complicated.
The abortion issue is included but not specifically mentioned in a proposed Equal Rights Amendment. The amendment would broaden the state’s anti-discrimination laws by prohibiting discrimination based on ethnicity, national origin, age, disability and “sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive health care and autonomy.” The state currently bans discrimination based on race, color, creed or religion.
Democrats in the state Legislature passed the amendment last year and put it on the ballot in 2024 as a way to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution. While not explicitly barring abortion restrictions, the amendment could be used to challenge future abortion bans through the argument that such bans would amount to discrimination, according to its backers and some legal experts.
Republicans meanwhile have argued the amendment would provide new constitutional protections for transgender athletes, among other things.
Democrats had urged the Board of Elections to include the terms “abortion” and “LGBT” in its description of the measure, arguing that it would be clearer to voters.
The Board of Elections’ Democratic members have filed court documents agreeing that the language should be changed. The board’s Republicans want to keep their current description. It’s unclear exactly when the court would issue a decision in the case.
New York currently allows abortion until fetal viability, which is usually between 24 and 26 weeks of pregnancy. New abortion restrictions are highly unlikely to become law, given that Democrats control state government by wide margins.
Democrats in a handful of states have put abortion-related questions on the ballot this year in an attempt to boost turnout following the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade. Voters have previously shown support for abortion access, and an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll recently found that 7 in 10 Americans think abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
Judge’s ruling bars insurers from going after defendants who agreed to $4 billion wildfire settlement
HONOLULU (AP) — A Maui judge’s ruling Tuesday resolves a critical roadblock to finalizing a $4 billion wildfire settlement: Insurance companies who have paid out more than $2 billion in claims can seek reimbursement only from the settlement amount defendants, who victims blame for causing the deadly tragedy, have agreed to pay.
Lawyers representing plaintiffs in hundreds of lawsuits over the deaths and destruction caused by the fires asked the judge to bar insurers from bringing independent legal action to recoup the money paid to policyholders. Preventing insurers from going after the defendants is a key settlement term.
The settlement was reached earlier this month, days before the one-year anniversary of the the fires, amid fears that Hawaiian Electric, the power company that some blame for sparking the blaze, could be on the brink of bankruptcy. Other defendants include Maui County and large landowners.
The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is investigating the Aug. 8, 2023, fires that killed 102 people, destroyed the historic downtown area of Lahaina, burned thousands of homes and displaced 12,000 people.
Plaintiff lawyers were worried allowing insurers to pursue reimbursement separately would be a deal-breaker, drain what is available to pay fire victims and lead to prolonged litigation.
A group of more than 160 property and casualty insurers that have so far paid more than $2.34 billion to people and businesses devastated by the fires remained as holdouts to the settlement.
Jesse Creed, an attorney serving as one of four liaisons for the coordination of the plaintiffs’ lawsuits, told Cahill the insurers want to get court judgements for enormous damages, “and leave a carcass for the plaintiffs.”
Insurer lawyers argued in court filings that what they called the rush to push through a settlement deprives the insurers of their due process.
The insurance industry has been unfairly villainized as outsiders taking resources from the community while those responsible for the fires won’t be held accountable, Vincent Raboteau, an attorney representing the insurers, told the judge.
“And we’re not arguing to be first in line for anything,” he said. “It’s always been our position that individual plaintiffs should get the lion’s share.
After the hearing, Raboteau declined to comment on Cahill’s ruling and wouldn’t say whether they plan to seek review of Cahill’s ruling by the Hawaii Supreme Court.
“We humbly ask the mainland subrogation attorneys to accept what Judge Cahill has made clear, which is no one should stand in the way of our people’s full recovery,” Gov. Josh Green said in a statement Tuesday night. “The world has changed as a result of climate forces, and we need to work together - states, insurers, attorneys - to create better ways for people to settle differences so they can address risks and recover when necessary.”
Jake Lowenthal, another liaison attorney for the plaintiffs, said they are heartened by Cahill’s ruling.
“This is going to be a critical part in reaching a final resolution of everyone’s claims as well as resolving the insurance companies’ potential rights of reimbursement,” he said.
New York
Proposed amendment lacks one word that could drive voter turnout: ‘abortion’
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — A proposed amendment to New York’s constitution meant to protect abortion access is a crucial part of Democrats’ plans to drive voter turnout in the state this fall and potentially flip vital congressional districts.
But there could be a problem: The ballot question doesn’t mention the word “abortion.”
Arguments began Wednesday over a lawsuit Democrats hope will force election officials to include the term in an explanation of the amendment that voters will see when casting their ballots.
The unusual legal effort begins weeks after the state Board of Elections chose late last month to use the measure’s technical language verbatim rather than interpret it in its explanation to voters.
Filed in state Supreme Court in Albany, the lawsuit argues that the board’s description violates a state law requiring ballot questions to be written in plain language that’s easy to understand — but that’s where things get complicated.
The abortion issue is included but not specifically mentioned in a proposed Equal Rights Amendment. The amendment would broaden the state’s anti-discrimination laws by prohibiting discrimination based on ethnicity, national origin, age, disability and “sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive health care and autonomy.” The state currently bans discrimination based on race, color, creed or religion.
Democrats in the state Legislature passed the amendment last year and put it on the ballot in 2024 as a way to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution. While not explicitly barring abortion restrictions, the amendment could be used to challenge future abortion bans through the argument that such bans would amount to discrimination, according to its backers and some legal experts.
Republicans meanwhile have argued the amendment would provide new constitutional protections for transgender athletes, among other things.
Democrats had urged the Board of Elections to include the terms “abortion” and “LGBT” in its description of the measure, arguing that it would be clearer to voters.
The Board of Elections’ Democratic members have filed court documents agreeing that the language should be changed. The board’s Republicans want to keep their current description. It’s unclear exactly when the court would issue a decision in the case.
New York currently allows abortion until fetal viability, which is usually between 24 and 26 weeks of pregnancy. New abortion restrictions are highly unlikely to become law, given that Democrats control state government by wide margins.
Democrats in a handful of states have put abortion-related questions on the ballot this year in an attempt to boost turnout following the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade. Voters have previously shown support for abortion access, and an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll recently found that 7 in 10 Americans think abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
