U.S. Justice Department files antitrust statement in California fire insurance case

Traders Union
All News
Financial News
DOJ California fire insurance case

Highlights

The U.S. Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest in Ferrier v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, opposing insurers’ bid to dismiss antitrust claims under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.
The DOJ asserts that the McCarran-Ferguson Act does not necessarily shield the 16 insurers from group boycott claims over fire insurance policy cancellations in California.
Federal intervention signals heightened DOJ scrutiny on insurer coordination and potential competition restrictions affecting homeowners’ coverage and rebuilding costs after major wildfires.

DOJ position in California court case

The U.S. Department of Justice says it has filed a Statement of Interest in Ferrier v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, a case pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The suit was brought by homeowners who say 16 insurers conspired to cancel fire insurance policies in the years before the January 2025 wildfires in southern California.

The department argues that the insurers should not be able to dismiss the claims under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which shields certain petitioning and advocacy directed at government agencies from antitrust liability. According to the filing, the alleged group boycott of policyholders is separate from any government petitioning activity and caused distinct harm.

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Charlie Beller of the Antitrust Division says homeowners affected by the Eaton and Palisades fires are still trying to rebuild nearly 16 months later. He says the division is monitoring insurer conduct across the country to ensure an improper reading of federal law does not block state or federal antitrust claims.

Implications for insurers and homeowners

The Statement of Interest also says the McCarran-Ferguson Act does not necessarily bar group boycott claims of the type alleged in the California case. That law limits certain federal antitrust claims involving insurance conduct that is subject to state oversight.

For the homeowners, the case centers on claims that policy cancellations pushed them into a state-run insurance program with less protective coverage and higher out-of-pocket rebuilding expenses. For the insurance sector, the department's intervention signals continued federal attention on whether insurer coordination and legal defenses could restrict competition or limit consumer remedies after major disasters.

The Antitrust Division says it regularly files statements of interest and amicus briefs in state and federal courts when doing so supports competition policy and consumer protection.

Our earlier coverage of the DOJ’s move to block Minnesota’s state climate lawsuit explained that federal prosecutors filed a complaint arguing the case is preempted by the Constitution and the Clean Air Act. The filing framed state-court attempts to regulate global greenhouse-gas emissions as an intrusion into an area the department says is reserved for federal policy, and it placed Minnesota within a broader DOJ pushback against similar state actions.

This material may contain third-party opinions, none of the data and information on this webpage constitutes investment advice according to our Disclaimer. While we adhere to strict Editorial Integrity, this post may contain references to products from our partners.