A Statement of Interest in the case of Ferrier v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, currently pending in the state Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, was filed by the U.S. Department of Justice recently.

According to a press release issued by the Office of Public Affairs, the case was brought by 60 homeowners who lost their homes to the deadly wildfires in Southern California in January 2025.

The homeowners allege that the 16 homeowners’ insurance companies named in the complaint jointly conspired to cancel homeowners’ fire insurance policies in the years leading up to the January 2025 fires. The homeowners claim they were forced to obtain insurance through a state-run program that offers less protective coverage, resulting in higher out-of-pocket expenses for rebuilding their homes.

“Nearly 16 months after the Eaton and Palisades Fires, the homeowners who lost everything are still trying to rebuild their lives,” said Deputy Assistant Attorney General Charlie Beller of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. “The last thing the fire victims need is the improper use of certain legal doctrines to deprive Angelenos of their day in court. The DOJ Antitrust Division is monitoring insurer conduct across the country to ensure that an improper understanding of federal law does not preclude state or federal antitrust claims.”

Although the case was brought under California state antitrust law, the insurance carriers have argued that the homeowners’ claims should be dismissed under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, an exemption from antitrust liability under both federal and California antitrust laws that protects petitioning and advocacy directed at government agencies.

The Department’s Statement of Interest argues that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine should not apply to the insurers’ alleged group boycott of the homeowner policyholders, as the alleged boycott was separate and distinct — and caused separate and distinct harms — from any government petitioning activity by the insurers.

The filing indicated that, “absent an exemption, a group boycott of the type alleged in this case could violate both state and federal antitrust laws.”

The Statement of Interest also notes that the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which limits certain federal antitrust claims regarding insurance conduct subject to state oversight, does not necessarily bar group boycott claims of the type alleged by homeowners in the case.

The Antitrust Division routinely files statements of interest and amicus briefs in federal and state courts to protect competition and consumers, the statement added.