Hawaiian Supreme Court, Rules against insurance companies, $ 4B settlement
The wildflies of the city of Lahaina destroyed about 80% of the historic city of Lahaina, the Booming Hawaii cultural showcase and tourist mother's mother. 102 people were killed and thousands were destroyed. Destruction damage caused about $ 5.5 billion.
A welding from the disaster was declared in August. Bidders and seven met the defendants: Hawaii province, Maui district, Hawaiian Electric, Kamehameha schools, West Maui Land Co., Hawaii Telcom and Spectrum / charter communication.
However, the companies participated in participating and wanted to present their suits against the defendants to restore some expenses to their policy. This AP is served as a “keypath obstacle” to advance the settlement and is now returning to a Maui District Referee to determine the path of the decision.
Insurance companies did not show “disappointment” on the decision of the AP, as they want to apply to a higher court.
“The main question at the beginning of the Supreme Court of Hawaii was a question that the state laws associated with health insurance insurance also have a loss of independent legal insurance against the restricted companies.” “The courts responded yes.”
Lawyers for the bidders may have a “bargaining contract” for the existing settlement contract, if insurers are allowed to wish their accounts separately, and extended the relief schedule for those who try to rebuild after fires.
Energy company Hawaii electric, appeared by reports that explore the cause of the fire as the main player. AP report, the brush growth in the bottom of one of the power plants. However, the company's own premature finance is a larger resettlement probability. Although the bidders were not enough digits to pay the losses, the Power Company was admitted to the settlement for the potential for bankruptcy potential.
However, insurance companies themselves not without applying, Yaquba Lowenthal, a lawyer representing some original bidders.
“Instead of following the suspects, insurers will have to prove to a judge who deserves to be returned because they receive more money than the requirement of the issue,” Arnental said.
