Notes for City council pertaining to Josh Snow’s
address to council March 18, 2025
Members of Council, please find attached some brief notes regarding the address I will deliver at council meeting Tues March 18, 2025.
First is transcript of an email exchange between Joylyn Castaing (assistant risk manager) Melissa Guerrero (City Risk Manager) and myself. This is to illustrate how I have been disregarded. For clarity, be awareI did mis- identify the City Arborist, Scott Christian, as Scott Christensen in these emails.
Second is a refresher on the City’s Ethic’s Code so that we may all be reminded of how interactions with individual citizens and businesses are meant to be handled by the city.
Third is a quick overview of the responsibilities 3rd party administrators have in handling claims.
Fourth is a brief description of now infamous Insurance industry practices, Delay, Deny, Defend.
(Email chain reads most recent to earliest, starting with my email to Joylyn who deferred me to Melissa. Note the almost month long delay in the 1st reply) Subject: RE: 631 East Main St. claim
From Josh Snow
To Mellissa
Guerrero
Date 2025-03-06 14:17
Message Body
Melissa
Why can you not answer my questions?
Let me be clear, I am not submitting a rejection letter at this time.
Please leave the claim open until I formally accept or reject the offer.
I am asking for answers.
Can you, or someone at the city be professional enough to do so?
Thank you
Josh
On Mar 6, 2025 10:37 AM, Mellissa Guerrero <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
Thank you for your email and we will accept this as a rejection to the settlement offer and close the file.
Thank you,
Mellissa Guerrero
Division Chief: Risk Manager ♦City Attorney’s Office/Risk Management Division ♦ (805) 925-0951 x2421
-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Snow <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 5:17 PM
To: Mellissa Guerrero <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 631 East Main St. claim
*** EXTERNAL EMAIL: Please use caution when opening links or attachments.***
Hi Melissa
Thank you for contacting me. I am still waiting for my questions to be answered, either by you or by George Hills.
I am trying to resolve this claim without moving to court, but to date this has been a one-sided conversation.
I have been in contact since the settlement offer was made, and have expressed my concerns multiple times without any meaningful reply. As such, I will pose these questions to you.
1. Why, when the parking lot was surveyed independently and by Scott Christensen, was there no mention or concern about the proposed area of repair (as illustrated in the bid from Toste) and the cost of repair until after the work was performed?
2. What specifically are you referencing about "other damage"?
The scope of work submitted in the bid from Toste is exclusive to the repair from tree root damage. There was no other damage to the front parking lot. I did, at a separate cost, have the remainder of the parking lot re-sealed and re-striped. I provided the original estimate showing the difference in cost to Joylyn so that there would be no confusion as to what should be the City's responsibility.
3.Sara Elhouty, your 3rd party administrator is on record lying about this claim multiple times throughout 2024. It was not until I provided reports from an independent Arborist and an Engineer ( at my expense) and with confirmation from Scott Christensen that she could no longer refute the claim. At that time Sara confirmed that the claim was legitimate, but that it "could not be paid until the work was done".
Again, why was no mention made of any concerns or discrepancies about the scope of work,the area in question or the cost of repairs at this time?
4. It seems that the decision as to the portion being paid is down to the recommendation of Scott Christensen.
Is that correct? IF so, please explain in detail what criteria he used to arrive at this percentage of liability.
5. Not only did Toste construction identify the area needing repair, the independent arborist, the engineer and Scott Christensen all did as well. This is exclusively the area that was repaired and that I am filing claim on.
What changed between Scott marking my parking lot with paint and now that would justify a diminished settlement?
I have documentation of his surveyed area and the email stating approximate area from him.
The repaired area is within a reasonable variance of his findings.
6. Was the report from my independent arborist and my engineer taken into consideration when offering this settlement? Is the person determining the settlement an engineer? Is the person determining the settlement a certified arborist? ( I am aware that Scott Christensen is)
I have enough documentation to back up my claim, can the city say the same? Or is it solely making the settlement offer based on the recommendation of a proven liar and the Parks and Rec arborist?
All in all, this reeks of a bad faith action from the City of Santa Maria and it's representative Sara Elhouty. From the beginning Sara has "Denied, Delayed and Deposed" as the now popular saying goes. It is insurance playbook 101. Although I was not privy to the "Zoom Meetings"
with George Hills, Parks and Rec and The City Attorney's office, I can easily imagine it being a group conversation of how to avoid responsibility.
Regardless, this is no way to treat a businessman, taxpayer and citizen of this City with an honest and legitimate claim. I followed protocol and trusted in integrity of The City of Santa Maria, and now I am shouldered with a repair bill that should not be mine. ( And,Toste Paving is threatening legal action if this isn't paid soon!)
It is my sincere hope that we can work together to reach a just and fair settlement without going to court. I feel we would have a more meaningful conversation if we can meet in person, perhaps on site, to discuss this.
Thank you for your time and attention in this matter, I look forward to your detailed response.
Kind regards,
Josh Snow
Subject: RE: 631 East Main St. claim
From Mellissa Guerrero
To [email protected]
Cc Joylyn Castaing
Date 2025-03-03 15:26
Message Body
Hello Mr. Snow,
My name is Mellissa Guerrero, and I am the Risk Manager for the City of Santa Maria and oversee all Tort Claims and have settlement authority per City Council Resolution. I review all Tort Claims that are submitted and work with our Third-Party Administrator, George Hills, once information is reviewed and I approve recommendation for rejection and/or approval for settlement of claims based on the information provided by our represented City Departments.
A settlement was mailed to your attention on November 27, 2024, for the amount of $6,866.00 based on the reports from Recreation and Parks concerning the exposed area of tree root damage. The approved settlement amount was based on the maximum
measurements of the root damage and the additional costs will be your responsibility as it was determined the damages were not caused by the tree roots.
My understanding from my multiple conversations with the George Hills representative is they were awaiting your acknowledgement so they may process the payment.
Please let me know if you are accepting our settlement offer and George Hills will process payment immediately after all required documents are received.
If you are unable to accept the settlement offer the Tort claim will be administratively closed.
Thank you,
Mellissa Guerrero
Division Chief: Risk Manager ♦City Attorney’s Office/Risk Management Division ♦
(805) 925-0951 x2421
This communication may contain information that is legally privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please note that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this information is strictly prohibited.
Anyone who receives this message in error should notify the sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete it from the computer.
-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Snow <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 3, 2025 11:52 AM
To: Joylyn Castaing <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 631 East Main St. claim
*** EXTERNAL EMAIL: Please use caution when opening links or attachments.***
Hi Joylyn
Thanks for getting back to me.
Unfortunately, due to the extensive deceit and outright lies from Sara, I don't believe there is room for any meaningful conversation with her.
As such, this matter needs to be be discussed with the City Attorney's Department.
I realize the city follows recommendations from her, but in this circumstance not only has she willfully been dishonest, but my independent Arborist report and subsequent inspection support my claim, contrary to what Scott Christensen has assessed.
I would like to meet with the Mr. Watson and Mr. Christensen in person to discuss this claim.
Can you please facilitate that meeting?
I am trying to navigate this claim in a manner that is reasonable and fair without incurring expenses that I should not have to bear.
It is in the city's interest to bring this to a fair conclusion, and I believe a face to face meeting will allow for truth, common sense and logic to prevail.
I can be reached via email, or phone at (805)720-5080
thanks again,
Josh
RE: 631 East Main St. claim
From Joylyn Castaing
To Josh
Snow
Date 2025-03-03 12:35
Message Body
Good Morning Mr. Snow-
Thank you for the call and your patience while I was out of the office. I appreciate the information below. Unfortunately, the City arborist assessed the exposed area where the tree roots were present. The settlement offer was based on that measured assessment. Please feel free to contact Sara at George Hills should you have any further questions.
thanks
Joylyn M. Castaing
Assistant Risk Manager| City Attorney's Office | City of Santa Maria
204 E. Cook | Santa Maria, Ca 93454 | 805-925-0951 ext. 2310 |
This communication may contain information that is legally privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please note that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. Anyone who receives this message in error should notify the sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete it from the computer.
-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Snow <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 3:23 PM
To: Joylyn Castaing <[email protected]>
Cc: Maribel Hernandez
<[email protected]>
Subject: 631 East Main St. claim
*** EXTERNAL EMAIL: Please use caution when opening
links or attachments.***
Hi Joylyn
I hope this email finds you doing well. I'm reaching out to gather some information.
As you may be aware, Sarah at George Hills attempted to settle this claim by offering an amount equal to 1/3 of the cost of the repair. I refused this offer and informed her we would be moving this to court.
I met with Phillip Sinco to move forward with taking this claim to court. He feels we have a strong case, but
encouraged me to try one last time to figure this all out since I will not be able to recoup legal costs in a limited
jurisdiction case. I would love it if we can avoid court if possible.
As such, I'm inquiring about the nature of the decision to not pay the full claim.
Can you explain to me why the city of SM/George Hills only offered 1/3 of the repair costs? I'm legitimately confused since I was told that the damage was indeed the city's
responsibility, and that it would be covered. I spent money on independent arborist and engineer reports after being flat-out lied to by Sarah that the city had no responsibility.
After submitting these reports, Sarah's demeanor shifted and responsibility was finally acknowledged.
I was then told by Sarah that they would not pay until the work was done. I had the work done on good faith and
assurance from Sarah (representing the city) and now I'm dealing with an outstanding bill that needs to be paid.
Not once was there a discussion about the estimate total or what the city would pay. (other than the email exchange between you and I)
If you recall, I sent you 2 different estimates from Toste. One for the total scope of work to the parking lot, and one with the City's portion split off. (I can resend these if needed) The only thing that I can think is that someone decided that the repair was 1/3 of the parking lot? The work I had
commissioned separately was a re-seal and stripe job, which was only a few thousand dollars.( $2765 for sealing, $1990 for striping)
If anything, I saved the city money by getting Toste to lower their initial bid of $20k for the city's portion!
I have approached this situation in good faith from the first filing of the claim, almost a year ago. I have done everything asked of me. I have endured rudeness, lying and deceitful practices from the agency representing the city, all in the belief that this claim would be handled professionally and promptly. At this point in time it seems neither of those criteria have been met and I am losing what little good will I have for the city.
I sincerely hope this is something we can resolve together. I look forward to hearing from you.
Warm Regards,
Josh Snow
(805)720-5080
P.S. I am looping in Maribel and Gloria from city council
City of Santa Maria Code of Ethics
Preamble
The residents and businesses in Santa Maria are entitled to have a fair, ethical and accountable local government that has earned the public's full confidence for integrity. The proper operation of democratic government requires that public officials be independent, impartial and responsible in their judgement and actions to the people.
City employees are also in a position of public trust and have an obligation, even higher than the private sector, to do their jobs well in the spirit of public service. As such, City officials and employees shall conduct themselves in an ethical manner, both on and off the job, and in a manner that does not present the appearance of a conflict of interest.
In recognition of these goals, the City Council has adopted the following Code of Ethics. For ease of reference, "City" shall refer to the City of Santa Maria; "officials" herein shall refer to any and all members of the City Council or any member of a City board or commission; and "employees" shall refer to all City employees.
The Code of Ethics
1. Act in the Public Interest Recognizing that stewardship of the public interest must be their primary concern, officials and employees will work for the common good of the people of Santa Maria and not for any private or personal financial business interest. Officials and employees will assure fair and equal treatment of all persons, claims and transactions.
California Insurance Code and Regulations:
In California, third-party administrators (TPAs) handling property claims for self-insured municipalities are generally required to adhere to California insurance laws and regulations, including those related to fair claims settlement practices.
California has specific laws and regulations governing insurance claims, including property claims, and these apply to all insurers, including self-insured entities and their TPAs.
Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations:
The Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations (Cal. Code of Regs, Title. 10, sections 2695.1 through 2695.12) outline how insurance claims must be processed in California, and TPAs must follow these regulations.
Unfair Insurance Practices Act:
The Unfair Insurance Practices Act (Cal. Ins. Code sections 790 through 790.15) prohibits unfair or deceptive insurance practices, and TPAs must be aware of these requirements
Delay Deny Defend
The insurance industry is often criticized for employing a strategy known as "delay, deny, and defend." This approach has been highlighted in various investigations and discussions as a method by which insurance companies aim to maximize their profits at the expense of claimants.
But what is “delay, deny, defend”, and how does this affect the average policyholder? Leading Oregon insurance lawyer Aaron DeShaw takes a closer look at each component of this strategy.
1. Delay
Insurance companies are known to delay the processing of claims to frustrate policyholders into abandoning their claims. This tactic involves creating bureaucratic obstacles, such as requiring additional forms, or claiming that forms were incorrectly filled out. By prolonging the claims process, insurers hope that claimants will either give up or accept lower settlements.
The "delay” strategy has significant implications for policyholders, as it results in prolonged financial hardship and emotional stress for injured people seeking valid compensation for their claims. Critics of the insurance industry argue that this approach prioritizes profits over fair treatment of customers, leading to widespread dissatisfaction and mistrust in the insurance industry.
2. Deny
Denying claims is another strategy used by insurers to avoid payouts. This can involve outright rejection of claims or offering settlements that are significantly lower than what might be considered fair. The denial tactic relies on the assumption that many claimants will not contest the decision due to frustration or lack of resources, thereby saving the insurer money that would otherwise be paid out in claims.
Claim denial is common—even on claims where liability is clear and insurance coverage is more than sufficient. Dr. Aaron DeShaw, insurance bad faith attorney, has been researching and writing on the topic of insurance bad faith for more than 20 years. His work has dispositively shown how the insurance industry uses software programs to systematically deny and undervalue claims.
3. Defend
When delay and denial do not deter a claimant, insurance companies resort to defending against claims in court. This involves extensive legal battles that can last for years, making it financially and emotionally taxing for claimants to continue pursuing their cases. Insurers often employ expert witnesses and complex scientific arguments to support their defense, even when these arguments may not hold up under rigorous scientific scrutiny.
Why do insurance companies take on the risk and hassle of litigating valid insurance claims? Their goal is simply to exhaust their claimants’ resources and force a low-ball settlement in their favor.