Posted on 01/11/2025 4:49:24 AM PST by bert
Insurance industry calls Harris' claim that insurers are canceling policies 'false, wrong and dangerous'
The insurance industry is pushing back after Vice President Kamala Harris suggested insurance companies have canceled the policies of victims of California's wildfires, calling her claim "false, wrong and dangerous."
During a press conference regarding the ongoing wildfires on Thursday, Harris said, "Many insurance companies have canceled insurance for a lot of the families who have been affected and will be affected, which is only going to delay or place an added burden on their ability to recover."
"I think that is an important point that must be raised," she continued, "and hopefully there can be some way to address that issue, because these families — so many of them — otherwise will not have the resources to recover in any meaningful way, and many of them have lost everything."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxbusiness.com ...
If you are self insured, you tend to be more aware of risks and of ways to minimize risks.
If you have minimized risks, you often can obtain lower insurance rates.
The state of CA will provide insurance for anyone who needs and wants it.
The catch is that it is expensive and the coverage is not that great.
https://www.insurance.ca.gov/01-consumers/105-type/5-residential/
Kamala was lying.
Falsely vilifying insurance companies is the first step in the creation of the next Luigi Mangione.
It’s a dangerous time to be publicly identified as a CEO...
“all of Brentwood is from the 405 to Mandeville Cyn.”
The winds died down last night so that area is probably OK for now.
There will be stronger winds during the day today—but the big test will be Sunday—much higher winds.
Kamala may want to figure out which gods in the Hindu pantheon she wants to pray to....
They will all re-build multmillion-dollar homes after their
They will need to find a contractor and the phase “supply and demand” come into play. There will not be enough contractors or trades men to meet the demand for a long time.
But the biggest hurdle will be the permit process. They may not be able to even get a permit to rebuild.
My guess is that a lot of these people will just relocate to somewhere else.
LA’s status of the center of entertainment will take a hit and many in the industry will use the fire as an excuse to abandoned California entirely. Only time will tell.
> Nobody will get jack squat except maybe a $1000 housing voucher.<
$750 and a tent would be fair play.
EC
The amusing thing about the FAIR plan is that it creates monopoly conditions—where all insurance companies must work together and make key decisions.
I agree it would make sense for all insurance companies to bail out on CA en masse.
There is just no practical way to deal with an insane governor, an insane legislature and insane insurance regulators.
Good post.
A good example might be what happened after Katrina in New Orleans.
A lot of folks just moved somewhere else—whether they had good insurance coverage or not—it was just easier.
The whole point of running off insurance companies and charging for the state plan wasn’t to pay claims. It was to raid the fund to pay for more dei woke bull droppings.
They saw how well social security has done in that department and wanted in on the fun. They (like congress) just hoped the bill would come due after they were out of office.
With how things are managed all of ca is a fire risk area.
Biden can give them $750, like he gave the people in NC.
Did the government, in the past, issue price controls on insurance? Did insurers then stop insuring? If the answers to both questions are “yes,” then blame government price controls.
James Woods verified his whole neighborhood lost there insurance .
So there is some truth here .
The last people to believe are Insurance Companies heads .
All lying weasels .
~~~~~
So you have a real estate plot with a foundation and the charred rubble of your burned-out home. And somehow you want to continue paying high insurance premiums?
Why?
Harris’ attempt at demonization is an imbecilic joke.
yes ... but very different legally. an insurance policy is a contract between 2 parties with an end date. If there is no renewal option in the contract then there is no obligation to renew. That is NOT cancellation.
I get it, “bankwalker”, you’re defending the insurance companies. But a “cancellation” mid-policy term would only be done with some sort of legal coverage, and colloquially and in effect when an insurance company opts not to renew your coverage, they have cancelled it.
I think there is a confusion over the legal meaning of words and the street usage of those same words.
Legally you are not canceling something if the old contract expires.
The street version is that you are canceling something if the old contract expires but in most cases automatic renewals happen.
I’m not defending insurance companies.. I’m defending contract law which is a foundation of our republic. Contracts have end dates for a reason. Would you enter into a contract without an end date?
Correct.
Nobody was challenging contract law.
Jeesh!
you said “when an insurance company opts not to renew your coverage, they have cancelled it.”
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.