Families place a parent in a facility because they cannot provide the care themselves. When that trust is broken, the harm is rarely a single event. It is a pattern: pressure sores that developed over weeks, falls that kept happening, medication that was never given, money that moved out of an account.
California treats these cases differently from ordinary negligence. The Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act gives victims and their families remedies that a standard negligence claim does not provide. Whether those remedies produce an actual recovery depends on the defendant’s insurance, and that is where I focus.
What the Elder Abuse Act Adds
The Act matters because of what it makes available. Where a plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that a defendant committed physical abuse, neglect, or abandonment, and did so with recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice, the court must award attorney’s fees and costs. The Act also permits recovery of the victim’s pain and suffering before death, which an ordinary survival claim does not allow.
Those remedies come with a higher burden. Ordinary caregiver carelessness is not enough. The conduct must go substantially beyond professional negligence, usually meaning a pattern rather than an isolated mistake. Cases are built on staffing records, care plans, incident reports, and the facility’s own documentation of what it knew.
Who Can Be Responsible
More than one party often bears responsibility, and each may carry separate insurance:
- Skilled nursing facilities
- Assisted living and residential care facilities for the elderly
- In-home caregivers and the agencies that place them
- Individual staff members
- Family members and others holding a position of trust, in financial abuse cases
Identifying every responsible party early matters, because it determines how much coverage is available.
The Insurance Question
A judgment is only worth what can be collected. Facilities carry insurance, but these policies vary widely, and several features affect what a family actually recovers.
Policies frequently distinguish between professional liability and general liability, and a claim may fall under one, the other, or both. Many liability policies exclude coverage for intentional or abusive conduct, which means how the claim is framed and proven can affect whether the policy responds at all. Punitive damages are generally not insurable in California, so a verdict that includes them may not be collectible from the carrier. Some facilities carry limits far below what a serious case is worth, and some operate through entities structured to hold few assets.
These are not reasons to abandon a case. They are reasons to understand the coverage picture at the beginning rather than after a judgment. I review the policies, identify which ones respond, and evaluate what the realistic recovery looks like before the family commits to a course of action.
Financial Abuse
Financial exploitation falls under the same statute. It covers taking or retaining an elder’s property for a wrongful use, including transfers obtained through undue influence. Claims commonly involve caregivers, people holding a power of attorney, and family members. Recovery may come from the individual, from a financial institution that failed to act on obvious warning signs, or from an insurance policy that covers the conduct.
When the Insurer Denies the Claim
Carriers defending these cases often dispute coverage while defending under a reservation of rights, or deny outright based on an exclusion. Those positions are frequently arguable rather than correct. My background is in analyzing these exact questions, and when an insurer takes an unreasonable position, that becomes a claim in itself. See denied claims and coverage disputes.
Defense-trained. Policyholder-focused. Reach Out Today!
If you believe a parent or family member has been harmed in a facility or by someone entrusted with their care, contact me. I meet with clients in English, Armenian, and Russian.