$2.4M Settlement: Insurance Broker Negligence at Cenocore
Table of Contents
Case Background
Cenocore, Inc., a California corporation, decided to expand its real estate holdings in the spring of 2022 by entering into an agreement to purchase a commercial property located at 2700 E. Slauson Avenue in Huntington Park. To protect this new investment, the company turned to Cal-Kor Insurance Services, an agency that had presented itself as a seasoned expert with over three decades of experience in the Los Angeles commercial insurance market. Cenocore specifically requested that Cal-Kor procure a policy capable of replacing the entire improved structure on the property if a total loss occurred. The structure itself held a replacement value exceeding $5 million, a critical detail given that the building lacked any internal fire suppression or sprinkler systems.
Cause
The trouble began when Cal-Kor chose to add the Huntington Park property to Cenocore’s existing commercial policy rather than securing a standalone plan tailored to the specific risks of the new site. In this process, the agency allegedly committed several catastrophic errors. Although the loan documents for the property purchase required full replacement cost coverage, the agency secured a limit that only covered the balance of the financing—less than half of what the building was actually worth. Furthermore, the agency allowed a "Protective Safeguard Endorsement" to remain on the policy. This specific clause made insurance coverage conditional on the building having an automatic sprinkler system, even though the agency knew, or should have known, that no such system existed at the Slauson Avenue location.
Injury
On New Year’s Day in 2023, a massive fire ignited at the property and completely destroyed the improved structure. When Cenocore submitted its claim, the insurance company’s adjuster revealed the existence of the sprinkler requirement. Because the property did not have the mandated system, the insurer threatened to deny the claim entirely. Even if the insurer eventually paid out, the policy limit sat at less than half of the $5 million needed to rebuild. This left Cenocore facing a massive financial void, unable to replace its asset or resume business operations at that location, resulting in immediate and severe economic damage.
Damages Sought
Cenocore initiated the lawsuit to recover the massive shortfall caused by the agency’s alleged professional negligence. The company asked the Court for compensatory damages ranging between $2.1 million and $5 million. This request aimed to cover the actual cost of the lost building that the insurance policy failed to protect. Additionally, the Plaintiff sought pre-judgment interest to account for the time the funds remained unavailable, along with the legal costs incurred during the battle to hold the insurance agency accountable for its mistakes.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Cenocore, Inc.
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Brandon C. Fernald | Clay R. Wilkinson
Defendant(s): CKFIS, Inc. dba Cal-Kor Insurance Services.
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Joseph C. Campo
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Attorneys for Cenocore argued that an insurance broker who claims thirty years of expertise should never overlook a "hidden" requirement for sprinklers in a building that clearly has none. They emphasized that the agency ignored the client's specific needs and relied solely on the lender's minimum requirements, which served the bank but left the property owner exposed. Counsel for Cal-Kor countered by arguing that Cenocore was a sophisticated business entity that should have reviewed its own policy documents. The defense claimed that the agency acted within the standard of care and that any loss resulted from the Plaintiff’s own failure to verify the coverage details or maintain the property safely.
Claims
Professional Negligence The core of the legal battle centered on the claim that Cal-Kor breached its duty to act as a reasonably careful insurance broker. Cenocore asserted that the agency failed to obtain basic information about the property and did not discuss coverage options that would have protected the structure's full value. By placing a policy that contained impossible conditions—like the sprinkler requirement—the agency effectively left the client without any functional insurance at all.
Breach of Expert Duty The Plaintiff specifically highlighted that Cal-Kor had held itself out as an elite expert in Los Angeles commercial real estate. Because the agency invited this high level of trust, Cenocore argued it had a heightened legal obligation to ensure the policy matched the requirements found in the property's financing documents. The lawsuit claimed the agency skipped the essential step of verifying the replacement cost, which led directly to the multi-million-dollar coverage gap.
Defense
General Denial of Wrongdoing Cal-Kor filed a comprehensive response denying every allegation of negligence. They argued that they had committed no wrongful acts and were not responsible for the fire or the resulting insurance complications. The defense suggested that the agency had provided adequate service and that the responsibility for any "unclean hands" or misrepresentations lay with the Plaintiff.
Comparative Fault and Failure to Mitigate The defense team argued that Cenocore contributed to its own financial injuries. They alleged that the company’s agents and employees had sufficient knowledge to understand the policy they received but chose to ignore the details. Cal-Kor also claimed that Cenocore failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate its damages after the fire occurred, which should legally reduce any potential payout the agency might owe.
Statute of Limitations and Laches Beyond the facts of the fire, the defense raised technical legal hurdles. They argued that the lawsuit might be barred because the Plaintiff waited too long to file or because the claims fell outside the time limits set by California law. They also invoked the doctrine of laches, suggesting that the delay in bringing the case had unfairly prejudiced the agency's ability to defend itself.
Settlement
The parties engaged in intense negotiations as the trial date approached. While Cal-Kor and its legal team initially maintained that the agency bore no responsibility for the insurance gap, the weight of the expert testimony regarding the sprinkler endorsement led to a resolution. Rather than risking a jury's decision on a professional negligence claim involving a $5 million loss, the Defendants agreed to settle the matter.
The parties reached a settlement agreement in the amount of $2,400,000. This payment served to compensate Cenocore for the massive shortfall between the actual value of their destroyed building and the insufficient insurance coverage the agency had procured. This settlement allowed Cenocore to recover a significant portion of its lost investment and avoided further litigation over the agency's failure to meet its professional duties. The Court subsequently dismissed the action following the finalization of the settlement terms.
Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com