Elder Abuse Statutes in Insurance Bad Faith Claims

Most policyholders who have been mistreated by their insurance company know about bad faith — the legal doctrine that holds insurers liable when they unreasonably deny, delay, or underpay claims. What most policyholders do not know is that when the person being mistreated is an elder or a dependent adult, California law provides a separate and significantly more powerful cause of action: the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, codified at Welfare and Institutions Code Section 15600 et seq.

This statute was enacted because the California Legislature recognized that elders and dependent adults are particularly vulnerable to financial exploitation — and that existing remedies were often inadequate to deter the conduct or compensate the victims. In the insurance context, this means that the same bad faith conduct that might result in a standard breach of contract and tort claim against an insurer can, when directed at a qualifying policyholder, trigger enhanced remedies that are not available in ordinary insurance litigation.

For policyholders and their families, understanding the Elder Abuse Act is critical. For attorneys evaluating insurance bad faith cases involving elderly clients, it can transform the economics of the case entirely.

Who Qualifies for Protection Under the Elder Abuse Act

The statute protects two categories of individuals:

• Elders:Any person who is 65 years of age or older (Welfare & Institutions Code § 15610.27). There is no requirement that the person be frail, cognitively impaired, or dependent on others. A sharp, independent 68-year-old policyholder qualifies just as much as a 90-year-old in assisted living. The only criterion is age.
• Dependent Adults:Any person between the ages of 18 and 64 who has physical or mental limitations that restrict their ability to carry out normal activities or to protect their rights, including persons who have physical or developmental disabilities or whose physical or mental abilities have diminished because of age (Welfare & Institutions Code § 15610.23). This includes individuals admitted to hospitals, assisted living facilities, or other care facilities.

What Constitutes Elder Abuse in the Insurance Context

The Elder Abuse Act covers several forms of abuse, but the most relevant to insurance claims are financial abuse(Welfare & Institutions Code § 15610.30) and neglect(Welfare & Institutions Code § 15610.57). In the insurance context, these concepts map directly onto common bad faith practices:

Financial Abuse (§ 15610.30)

Financial abuse of an elder or dependent adult occurs when a person or entity takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both. In the insurance context, this can include:

• Withholding benefits owed under the policy— When an insurer knows that benefits are due and refuses to pay them, or deliberately delays payment to pressure the policyholder into accepting less, the insurer is effectively retaining money that belongs to the policyholder. For an elderly policyholder whose home has been damaged or destroyed, delayed payment can mean the difference between being able to rebuild and being displaced indefinitely.
• Lowball settlements designed to take advantage of vulnerability— Making an initial offer far below the actual value of the claim, knowing that an elderly policyholder may lack the energy, resources, or sophistication to fight for more. Many elderly policyholders accept inadequate settlements because they cannot endure the physical and emotional toll of a prolonged dispute.
• Pressuring elderly policyholders to accept inadequate settlements— Using high-pressure tactics, artificial deadlines, or implied threats that the claim will be denied entirely unless the policyholder accepts a lowball offer. This is particularly egregious when directed at someone who may be isolated, ill, or recovering from a loss.
• Confusing or misleading elderly policyholders about their rights— Burying important information in complex correspondence, using technical jargon to obscure what is happening, or failing to clearly explain the basis for a claim decision. When this conduct is directed at an elderly policyholder, it can constitute financial abuse.
• Using complicated processes designed to frustrate the claimant— Requiring multiple forms, repeated submissions of documentation already provided, unnecessary examinations under oath, or other procedural obstacles that serve no legitimate purpose but are designed to wear down the policyholder until they give up or accept less than they are owed.

Unreasonable Delays as Elder Abuse

Delay is one of the most common insurance company tactics, and it disproportionately harms elderly policyholders. A 35-year-old policyholder who has to wait 18 months for a fair settlement is frustrated and inconvenienced. A 75-year-old policyholder who has to wait 18 months may never see the resolution of their claim. The claims-handling system tends to reward delay in the aggregate — prolonged disputes statistically produce more accepted-under-pressure settlements and, with older claimants, a greater likelihood that incapacity or death intervenes before resolution. Those outcomes are a function of how the process is designed and measured, and they fall hardest on elderly claimants.

When delay is used as a tool against an elderly policyholder, it is not merely bad faith — it is conduct that can constitute elder abuse under the Act, with all the enhanced remedies that entails.

Enhanced Remedies: Why Elder Abuse Claims Change Everything

The real power of the Elder Abuse Act lies in the remedies it provides. In a standard insurance bad faith case, a policyholder can recover the unpaid policy benefits, consequential damages, and — if they can prove oppression, fraud, or malice — punitive damages. But the Elder Abuse Act goes further in several critical ways:

Mandatory Attorney’s Fees (W&I Code § 15657.5(a))

In a successful financial-abuse action, the court shallaward reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Under § 15657.5(a), this remedy turns on proof of the financial abuse by a preponderance of the evidence— the ordinary civil standard, not the heightened clear-and-convincing showing that some other remedies require. It is not discretionary; it is mandatory. In standard bad faith litigation, attorney’s fees are generally not recoverable unless a specific statute or contract provision provides for them. The availability of fee-shifting fundamentally changes the economics of the case: it makes it financially viable for attorneys to take cases that might otherwise not justify the investment, and it increases the insurer’s exposure significantly.

Pain and Suffering Damages

Elder abuse claims allow recovery for the emotional distress, pain, and suffering caused by the abusive conduct. While emotional distress damages are theoretically available in bad faith cases as well, the elder abuse framework provides a clearer and more direct path to these damages, particularly when the conduct involves financial exploitation of a vulnerable person.

Punitive Damages

Punitive damages are available under both standard bad faith and elder abuse theories. However, the elder abuse framework can make punitive damages easier to obtain in practice because the jury is evaluating the conduct through the lens of its impact on a vulnerable person — conduct that might appear merely aggressive in a commercial dispute looks very different when directed at a 78-year-old policyholder whose home just burned down.

Survival Action: Damages Do Not Die with the Plaintiff

This is the most significant remedy unique to elder abuse claims. Under California’s general survival statute (Code of Civil Procedure § 377.34), when a plaintiff dies during litigation, the estate can recover only the economic damages that the decedent would have been entitled to — pain and suffering damages generally die with the plaintiff. (SB 447 temporarily allowed pre-death pain-and-suffering recovery in general survival actions for cases filed January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2025, but that window has now closed and § 377.34 has reverted to its longstanding economic-damages-only rule.) But under the Elder Abuse Act (Welfare & Institutions Code § 15657.5(b)), where the plaintiff proves the financial abuse by a preponderance of the evidence andproves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice, the § 377.34 limitation is lifted and the decedent’s estate can recover all damages that the decedent would have been entitled to, including pain and suffering and punitive damages — making the § 15657.5(b) survival advantage materially more valuable now that the SB 447 window has expired.

Insurance companies understand the significance of this provision. In standard bad faith litigation, if the elderly policyholder dies before trial, much of the insurer’s exposure evaporates. The elder abuse survival action removes that incentive entirely — meaning the insurer cannot benefit from delay that results in the policyholder’s death. This is a powerful deterrent against the very delay tactics that disproportionately harm elderly claimants.

The Legal Standards: Two Different Burdens

The financial-abuse remedies under the Act operate on two distinct burdens, and courts appear to treat them separately. Under Welfare & Institutions Code § 15657.5(a), the mandatory award of attorney’s fees and costs requires only that the plaintiff prove the financial abuse itself by a preponderance of the evidence— the ordinary civil standard. The heightened showing enters at § 15657.5(b): to lift the § 377.34 limitation and reach the survival enhancement, the plaintiff must additionally prove by clear and convincing evidencethat the defendant acted with “recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice.” Conflating the two — treating the clear-and-convincing standard as a gate on the fee award — overstates what § 15657.5(a) requires. The clear-and-convincing recklessness standard is higher than ordinary negligence but is generally understood to be a standard that systematic insurer misconduct can meet.

“Recklessness” in this context means a deliberate disregard of the high degree of probability that the conduct will cause harm to the elder. When an insurance company has a pattern and practice of delaying claims, lowballing settlements, or using procedural obstacles to wear down claimants — and when the company knows or should know that this conduct is being directed at elderly policyholders — the recklessness standard can be met.

Consider: when an adjuster knows the policyholder is 80 years old, knows the claim has been pending for a year, knows the policyholder is living in temporary housing, and still issues a lowball offer designed to pressure a quick settlement — that is not mere negligence. That is conduct undertaken with knowledge that it will cause harm to a vulnerable person. That is the kind of conduct the Elder Abuse Act was designed to address.

Key Case Law: Elder Abuse in the Insurance Context

Whether an insurer’s claims handling can support an elder financial abuse claim remains a contested theory rather than settled law. The leading published insurance decision, Paslay v. State Farm(discussed below), rejected the elder abuse claim on genuine-dispute grounds — the insurer prevailed. Plaintiffs continue to argue that reckless or knowing withholding of clearly owed benefits from an elderly policyholder can constitute financial abuse under the Act, but the reported case law to date has been cautious, and outcomes are highly fact-dependent.

The Recklessness Standard in Practice

In Delaney v. Baker(1999) 20 Cal.4th 23, the California Supreme Court clarified the standard for enhanced remedies under the Elder Abuse Act. The Court held that the plaintiff must show by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was guilty of “recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice in the commission of [the] abuse.” The Court emphasized that “recklessness” refers to a subjective state of culpability greater than simple negligence — a deliberate disregard of a high degree of probability that harm will result. This standard, while meaningful, is regularly met in cases involving systematic insurer misconduct.

Corporate Liability and the Managing Agent Requirement

For enhanced remedies against a corporate defendant like an insurance company, the plaintiff must show that an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation was involved in the abuse, authorized or ratified it, or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice (Civil Code § 3294(b)). In practice, this means establishing that the claims handling decisions were made or approved at a supervisory level — which is often demonstrable when the insurer has company-wide policies or practices that systematically disadvantage elderly claimants.

In Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court(2004) 32 Cal.4th 771, the California Supreme Court analyzed the “neglect” theory of elder abuse under W&I Code § 15610.57, distinguishing it from professional negligence and discussing the standard for enhanced § 15657 remedies in a custodial-care context. The “responsible for meeting basic needs” formulation that appears in Covenant Care tracks the statutory definition of neglectin § 15610.57 specifically — it is not a universal element of every elder abuse claim. Financialabuse claims under § 15610.30 follow that statute’s separate elements (taking, secreting, appropriating, obtaining, or retaining property for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud), and do not require proof that the defendant was responsible for the elder’s basic needs in the custodial sense.

Financial Abuse in the Insurance Context

The financial abuse provision of the Elder Abuse Act (§ 15610.30) has been tested in the insurance context, but the leading published decision cut against the policyholder. In Paslay v. State Farm General Ins. Co. (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 639, the Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for State Farm on both the bad faith and the elder abuse causes of action, applying the genuine dispute doctrine; only the breach of contract claim was revived for trial. The court reasoned that, under § 15610.30(b), wrongful conduct occurs only where the insurer actually knows — or reasonably should be aware — that it is engaging in a harmful breach, and it found no evidence State Farm acted in subjective bad faith in denying the disputed benefits. Paslayis therefore a cautionary precedent for policyholders: it shows that an elder abuse claim against an insurer can be defeated on the same genuine-dispute grounds that defeat a bad faith claim. The argument that knowing, reckless withholding of clearly owed benefits from an elderly policyholder can constitute financial abuse remains available — but it is contested, and a plaintiff must be prepared to overcome the genuine-dispute defense.

In Das v. Bank of America, N.A.(2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 727, the court addressed what constitutes “wrongful use” under § 15610.30. Dasis a defense-oriented decision that limitsfinancial elder abuse liability for neutral financial intermediaries: it held that routine, authorized banking transactions do not constitute “wrongful use” absent evidence that the defendant knew or should have known the transactions were wrongful as to the elder. The principle that follows from Das for the insurance context is the converse of how it cuts against banks: where an insurer knows benefits are owed and nonetheless retains them, the knowledge element Das identified is satisfied. That is essentially the same knowledge element a bad-faith claim already requires. Dastherefore does not lower the bar for elder financial abuse against insurers — it reinforces that the plaintiff must prove the insurer knew or should have known its conduct was wrongful as to the elder.

When and How to Assert Elder Abuse in an Insurance Claim

Asserting elder abuse is not just a litigation strategy — it can and should be raised during the claims process itself. The earlier the insurer knows that its conduct may give rise to elder abuse liability, the more likely it is to change course.

During Claim Negotiations

When negotiating a claim on behalf of an elderly policyholder, the policyholder’s representative — whether a Public Adjuster or an attorney — should ensure the insurer is aware of the policyholder’s age and any vulnerabilities. This is not about playing a sympathy card; it is about putting the insurer on notice that its conduct will be evaluated through the lens of the Elder Abuse Act. An insurer that knows enhanced remedies are in play will think twice before engaging in the delay tactics, lowball offers, and procedural obstacles that might otherwise be standard operating procedure.

In Demand Letters

A demand letter that formally asserts a statutory elder abuse cause of action is legal advocacy, and it is generally best drafted and sent by (or through) the policyholder’s attorney rather than a non-lawyer representative. Where a demand letter is prepared through counsel on behalf of an elderly policyholder, it will typically reference the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (Welfare & Institutions Code § 15600 et seq.) and identify the specific conduct that may constitute elder financial abuse under § 15610.30. The letter can point to the enhanced remedies potentially available under § 15657.5 — including mandatory attorney’s fees and the survival enhancement — so that the insurer’s claims department and legal team confront the potential exposure in writing.

Filing a CDI Complaint

When filing a complaint with the California Department of Insurance, specifically note the policyholder’s elder or dependent adult status. The CDI takes complaints involving vulnerable populations seriously, and identifying the policyholder as an elder puts additional regulatory pressure on the insurer. See our guide on filing a CDI complaint for the step-by-step process.

When to Involve an Attorney

If an insurance company is engaging in conduct that may constitute elder abuse — systematic delays, lowball offers, pressure tactics, or withholding of benefits — and the policyholder is 65 or older (or a qualifying dependent adult), it is critical to consult with an attorney who has experience with both insurance bad faith and elder abuse litigation. These cases require specific pleading, specific evidence, and a specific litigation strategy. A Public Adjuster can identify the conduct and build the claims file, but the legal claims require an attorney. See our guide on when to hire an insurance claim attorney.

The Connection to Unfair Claims Practices

California Insurance Code § 790.03 prohibits a range of unfair claims settlement practices, including misrepresenting policy provisions, failing to acknowledge communications promptly, failing to adopt reasonable standards for investigating claims, and not attempting in good faith to reach a fair and equitable settlement when liability is reasonably clear. The Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations (10 CCR 2695) implement these prohibitions with specific, detailed requirements for how insurers must handle claims.

When these unfair practices are directed at elderly or dependent adult policyholders, the regulatory violations become evidence supporting the elder abuse claim. A pattern of violating the Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations — failing to meet statutory deadlines, failing to provide written explanations for claim decisions, failing to conduct adequate investigations — when directed at an elderly policyholder, demonstrates the reckless disregard for the elder’s rights that the Elder Abuse Act requires.

In other words, the same regulatory violations that would support a bad faith claim also serve as evidence of elder abuse when the policyholder is 65 or older. The conduct is the same — but the remedies are dramatically enhanced. Every regulatory violation documented in the claims file becomes a building block for the elder abuse cause of action.

Elder Abuse and Bad Faith: Complementary Claims

Elder abuse and insurance bad faith are not alternative theories — they are complementary claims that should be asserted together when the facts support both. The bad faith claim addresses the insurer’s breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The elder abuse claim addresses the enhanced culpability of directing that same misconduct at a vulnerable person.

Consider a claim involving a 72-year-old policyholder whose home was destroyed in a wildfire. The insurer delays the investigation for six months, issues a lowball estimate that covers only 60% of the actual rebuilding cost, refuses to pay adequate additional living expenses while the policyholder lives in a hotel, and then pressures the policyholder to accept a settlement by implying that a “take it or leave it” offer is the insurer’s final position. This conduct supports:

1. Breach of contract— The insurer failed to pay the benefits owed under the policy.
2. Breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing— The delay, lowballing, and pressure tactics were unreasonable.
3. Violation of Insurance Code § 790.03— The insurer violated multiple unfair claims practices statutes.
4. Elder financial abuse under Welfare & Institutions Code § 15610.30— The insurer withheld benefits and used pressure tactics against an elderly policyholder with reckless disregard for the harm caused.

Each cause of action adds a layer of liability. But it is the elder abuse claim that triggers the mandatory attorney’s fees, the enhanced survival action, and the additional leverage in settlement negotiations. For cases involving elderly policyholders, this fourth cause of action can be the most important one in the complaint.

Documenting the Elder Abuse Claim: Building the Record

As with any insurance dispute, the strength of an elder abuse claim depends on the quality of the documentation. When handling a claim for an elderly policyholder, it is essential to build the record from day one:

• Document the policyholder’s age and status— Ensure that every communication with the insurer identifies the policyholder as an elder (65+). This puts the insurer on notice that the Elder Abuse Act applies.
• Document every delay— Keep a detailed timeline of every communication, every missed deadline, every unanswered phone call. The Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations impose specific deadlines on insurers. Every violation is evidence.
• Document the impact on the policyholder— Record how the insurer’s conduct is affecting the elderly policyholder: physical health deterioration, emotional distress, displacement from home, financial hardship, isolation from community. The human cost of the insurer’s conduct is central to the elder abuse claim.
• Preserve all written communications— Every letter, email, and text message between the policyholder (or their representative) and the insurer becomes evidence. Follow up every phone call with a written summary sent to the adjuster confirming what was discussed.
• Document lowball tactics— When the insurer makes an offer, document not just the number but the circumstances: Was the offer presented as “final”? Was there pressure to accept quickly? Was the basis for the offer explained? Did the insurer adjuster know the policyholder’s age and circumstances?
• Obtain medical records if relevant— If the insurer’s conduct has caused or exacerbated health problems for the elderly policyholder, medical records documenting the decline become powerful evidence of damages.

Practical Considerations for Families and Representatives

Many elderly policyholders do not handle their own insurance claims. Adult children, spouses, trustees, or other representatives often manage the claim on their behalf. If you are handling a claim for an elderly family member, keep the following in mind:

• Get proper authorization— Ensure you have a signed authorization (or power of attorney) allowing you to communicate with the insurer on the policyholder’s behalf. Insurers may refuse to speak with unauthorized representatives.
• Do not let the insurer bypass you— If you are the authorized representative, insist that all communications go through you. Some adjusters will attempt to contact the elderly policyholder directly, hoping to obtain statements or settlements without the representative’s involvement.
• Be aware of cognitive changes— Even policyholders who are generally sharp may have moments of confusion or may be more susceptible to pressure when stressed. If the insurer insists on an examination under oath, ensure the policyholder is represented and prepared.
• Act promptly— Statutes of limitations for elder abuse claims depend on the theory pled. By its own terms, the Elder Abuse Act’s four-year limitations period at W&I Code § 15657.7 governs actions for damages for financial abuse under both § 15657.5 and§ 15657.6, running from when the plaintiff discovered or, through reasonable diligence, should have discovered the facts constituting the financial abuse. (Physical abuse and neglect claims sit outside § 15657.7 and are generally subject to the general two-year personal-injury statute at Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1, or MICRA’s special rules in the medical-malpractice context.) Other deadlines — including policy suit-limitation clauses on the underlying insurance claim — may also apply. Statutes of limitations involve complex legal analysis. Consult a licensed attorney to determine the applicable deadline. Do not wait.

What to Do If You Suspect Elder Abuse in an Insurance Claim

If you believe that an insurance company is engaging in conduct that may constitute elder abuse — whether through unreasonable delay, pressure tactics, lowball offers, or outright denial of benefits owed to an elderly or dependent adult policyholder — take these steps:

1. Document everything— Keep a detailed log of all communications, deadlines, offers, and the impact on the policyholder.
2. Put the insurer on notice— In writing, identify the policyholder as an elder (stating their age) and reference the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act. This alone can change the insurer’s behavior.
3. File a CDI complaint— Note the policyholder’s elder status in the complaint. The CDI complaint process creates a regulatory record.
4. Consult with an attorney— An attorney experienced in elder abuse and insurance bad faith can evaluate the facts, determine whether the enhanced remedies are available, and pursue the claim aggressively.
5. Consider hiring a Public Adjuster — A licensed Public Adjuster can manage the day-to-day claims process, build the documentation, and work alongside an attorney to maximize the recovery.