Posted on 02/19/2020 4:44:18 PM PST by karpov
California's wildfires are getting deadlier and more destructive each year. Naturally then, state politicians want to make it easier to get insurance in fire-prone areas.
On Tuesday, Assemblymembers Lorena Gonzalez (D–San Diego) and Monique Limon (D–Santa Barbara) introduced Assembly Bill (A.B.) 2367. Their "Renew California" bill would require that insurance companies write new policies or indefinitely renew current ones for existing homes provided they meet yet-to-be-determined state standards for fire-hardening.
Roughly one million homes in wildfire-affected areas are already covered by a one-year moratorium on non-renewals issued by the state's elected insurance commissioner, Ricardo Lara, in December 2019. Lara has endorsed A.B. 2367.
Both the current moratorium and Tuesday's bill are meant to combat the rising trend of insurance companies refusing to renew policies in wildfire-prone areas. Data from the state's Department of Insurance shows that non-renewals have risen by 10 percent in counties affected by 2015 and 2017 wildfires.
"Homeowners who have done all the right things, hardening their homes and mitigating for fire danger, are still seeing their insurance canceled or non-renewed," said Gonzalez in a press release. "We can't allow insurance companies to continue to drop responsible homeowners from San Diego to the Sierras just because they can."
It's possible insurance companies are dropping profitable policies "just because they can." They could also be responding to state regulations that prevent them from raising rates to cover the increased costs of providing insurance in wildfire-prone areas.
In California, proposed rate increases have to be approved by the insurance commissioner. State law also prevents insurance companies from passing on to customers the costs of reinsurance (insurance on insurance), climate change, and other future risks. Third parties can also contest proposed rate increases, which consumer advocates frequently do.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
After a fire, bears and pumas like extra crispy humans.
Mitigate fire spread by allowing brush removal and down/dead tree removal. Butterflies and owls will do fine. Lumber companies know more about wildlife and natural resource management than Sacramento.
If it takes me insurance company (USAA) no longer offering fire insurance in the state, I hope that happens if they are not allowed to raise insurance rates commensurate with the risks.
Driving insurance companies out-of-business or out-of-state will (my best guess) be the result. It will be the fault of the (cough, cough) legislators, not the ins companies.
Of course, they do not get that (IIRC) the previous governor's opposition to thinning forests that reach hazardous fuel proportions was the primary driver of the tragedy that was the Paradise, aka "Camp" Fire.
Not sure if that affects wildfires and insurance policies.
This is a tough one. If you already own a house and have a mortgage on it and no insurance company will insure it, the bank could call your loan.
It also essentially makes your house unsellable.
Perhaps have some compromise with existing homes but not force insurance companies to insure new homes in those areas.
Just like building in a flood zone. If you want to do it, fine, but no insurance for you.
So the owners of existing vacant property are now holding worthless assets.
Don’t laugh too hard - why not deny insurance based on their idea if what wildfire-prone is... works for all states that have fires right? How about tornados, earthquakes, and hurricanes as well? Hmmmm
Insurance companies apparently are taking pictures of the brush/trees/weeds around California homes.
These burnables must be 6’ off the ground.
My neighbor to the west and I spent about 2 k each to get the brush in our backyards loped/cut and carried away.
Our neighbor to the north didn’t do it due to the husband saying “bs”. However, they just spent 3K to get their brush cut and removed. Apparently, one of the neighbors next to the ‘No’ guy had their lawyer explain that his stubbornness might cost him millions of $’s if fires due to his brush took out several homes of his neighbors.
Flood Insurance is a JOKE.
Federally weaponized zero EPA laws are literally deranged, however.
Sorry! My post was meant for Karpov.
Um, yes you can.
You can force insurance companies to cover illegals, so you can provide state insurance to cover idiots who decide to live in areas where the STATE does not provide adequate defensive measure to live in a wildfire zone.
It also essentially makes your house unsellable.
Perhaps have some compromise with existing homes but not force insurance companies to insure new homes in those areas.
Yup. Florida went through this after a spate of hurricanes 20 years ago.
The state can fill in. If you can't afford the state insurance - move.
The article starts off with a lie, which makes the rest of the info suspect.
There is no actual trend with the fires. This last year was bad because there was a lot of rain in the Spring which caused a lot of brush growth. Then after it dried out the weather in the Rockies and high plains was unusually cold which caused strong easterly winds. The right conditions came together to create an unusually fire season.
There are more people living in areas prone to wildfire than there once was.
Counties around here will not issue building permits on new construction in a flood zone.
I’m going to guess randomly what’s not in the bill.
I’m going to guess that an inspection by CalFire is required before the policy can be issued with no identified problems on the property that haven’t been fully addressed.
I’m going to guess that there’s nothing in there that requires insurance companies to conduct yearly inspections to ensure that overgrowth and dangers have been addressed on the property.
I’m going to guess that there’s absolutely nothing in there that would force a company to do business in California.
And I can guess exactly what will happen (because this has already been done before and exactly the same thing happened then too...) Companies will stop issuing home insurance in California. It’ll be down to the state of California’s ‘wildfire fund insurance’ (which coincidentally they won’t permit any private company issue a similar policy, they have to have MUCH more bells and whistles to be available for sale here.)
Think something similar to federal flood insurance. It covers a little, if you rely upon it entirely you’re soaked. Or as those few who had such policies in Paradise found, unable to claim anything more than a fraction of the home’s value (and nothing covering interim housing or the like.) Forget about any personal property, not covered.
So there you have it. You MUST issue the insurance, you MUST renew the insurance, you MUST do everything we tell you to. If a bad fire caught on the ridge between downtown Nevada City and the outlaying areas, you’d have a much bigger burn area with a lot more fatalities.
If one caught in the strangely forested area in the middle of Grass Valley, you’d lose the town too. (Guess which areas homeless people like to light their camp fires in?)
Oh, and all the while, 1/3rd of the state gets to revisit the living conditions in Venezuela as what’s starting out as a dry year goes on. There’s even a court case in California which is wanting to force PG&E and SCE to shut off power to wealthier neighborhoods which have no fire danger in the cause of ‘equality.’ Looks like they’ll succeed.
The devil is in the details...Here it come$
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.