Independent investigator hired by State Farm says the first fire was intentionally set.
The Case
- Case Name: Jordan Thorn, et al. v. State Farm General Insurance Company, et al.
- Court and Case Number: Kern County Superior Court / BCV-21-100585
- Date of Verdict or Judgment: Thursday, June 25, 2026
- Date Action was Filed: Tuesday, March 16, 2021
- Type of Case: Breach of Contract, Insurance – Bad Faith, Claims Handling
- Judge or Arbitrator(s): Hon. Bernard Barmann, Jr.
- Plaintiffs:
Jordan Thorn, Jenna Thorn
- Defendants:
State Farm General Insurance CompanyTom Pierce, Pierce Fire Investigations, Inc.
- Type of Result: Jury Verdict
The Result
- Gross Verdict or Award: Defense verdict
- Award as to each Defendant:
As to defendant State Farm, nonsuit was granted with respect to the second (breach of the implied covenant - 2017 claim), fifth (breach of contract - 2019 claim) and sixth causes of action (breach of the implied covenant - 2019 claim).
The matter went to the jury on the first cause of action only, breach of contract with respect to the original 2017 fire, which resulted in a unanimous defense verdict.
As to defendants Tom Pierce/Pierce Fire Investigations, nonsuit was granted as to the sole remaining cause of action for interference with contract. The fourth cause of action for negligence was resolved when Pierce/PFI's summary adjudication motion was granted. - Jury Polls: Unanimous
The Attorneys
- Attorney for the Plaintiff:
Bay Cities Law Group by Steven Zelig, Marina del Rey.
- Attorney for the Defendant:
McCormick Barstow LLP by Dana B. Denno and Nicholas H. Rasmussen, Fresno. (For State Farm General Insurance Company.)
Stone | Dean by Gregory E. Stone, Woodland Hills. (For Tom Pierce and Pierce Fire Investigations.)
The Experts
- Plaintiff's Technical Expert(s):
Richard Masters, claim handling.
Frank Arbiso, general contracting.
Erik W. Christiansen, Ph.D., P.E., CFI, fire cause and origin.
- Defendant's Technical Expert(s):
James M. Stemler, M.C.F.I., fire cause and origin.
Facts and Background
- Facts and Background:
Plaintiffs owned a single family home in Bakersfield. The property was insured by State Farm General Insurance Company.
On 10/27/2017 there was a fire at the property. Plaintiffs made a claim to State Farm. State Farm hired Tom Pierce of Pierce Fire Investigations, to evaluate how the fire occurred. Pierce concluded that the fire was intentionally set. The home thereafter had additional fires in 2019, for which an additional claim was submitted.
- Plaintiff's Contentions:
Plaintiffs contended that State Farm breached the insurance policy by failing to pay the claim and that Tom Pierce and Pierce Fire Investigations interfered with the insurance policy. Plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages.
- Defendant's Contentions:
State Farm contended that it property denied the claim. Specifically, State Farm contended that the plaintiffs breached the duty to cooperate with the claim investigation and made material misrepresentations in the course of the claim.
Injuries and Other Damages
-
Plaintiffs' general contractor estimated that the amount to repair the home after the fires was over $444,000, in excess of the structure limit of the policy. Plaintiffs also claimed emotional distress damages. Plaintiffs also initially sought, but were precluded after pre-trial motions from presenting at trial, claims for wage loss/loss of future earnings capacity. Plaintiffs stated an intention to seek punitive damages in a second, bifurcated phase of trial. Plaintiffs' counsel represented that they intended to ask the jury for an award of $5-$10 million.
Demands and Offers
- Plaintiff Final Demand before Trial: $795,000
- Defendant §998 Offer: $50,000 from defendant Pierce.
Additional Notes
Defendant State Farm issued two 998s, the first for a waiver of costs in January 2024, the second for $75,000 in December 2024.
The Pierce defendants issued a 998 for $50,000.
Plaintiffs never issued any 998s. Plaintiffs’ last pre-trial demand was $795,000.
Plaintiffs' motions to tax have both been denied, so the cost will be included in a pending amended judgment in favor of defendants.