California Politicians Double Down on Encouraging People To Live in Wildfire-Prone Areas. The Renew California legislation introduced yesterday would force insurance companies to renew insurance policies in wildfire zones.

Reason ^ | February 19, 2020 | Christian Britschgi

[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.

[dragnet2]

Just like building in a flood zone. If you want to do it, fine, but no insurance for you.

Insurance companies don't like any risk...Similar to Vegas. Look at their opulent corporate headquarters for some of these mega insurance companies. Gleaming glass skyscrapers with security that matches Trump's Mar-a-Lago...Ya see, they've made lots of enemies denying claims. And why they have entire floors dedicated to attorneys and investigators.

[vigilence]

This is already a problem in rural areas that don’t have a local fire department. If you are out of a Cal Fire covered area your insurance has increased dramatically and available only if you carry all of your insurance needs with them. In the Northern California area there are mountain cabins for sale everywhere you go after years of short supply. Brown and his misguided friends in the Sierra Club have fought for decades in this state for a “natural” environment. Well, fire is a natural occurrence but over abundant vegetation is also fuel for fire. And if this bill is enacted all Californians will pay higher rates to cover for those who choose to live in high fire danger areas.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

You do understand the concept of shared risk and actuarial science?

If you think insurance companies are so evil then you should definitely not purchase any insurance.

[Mark]

That fire that wiped out Paradise started small, but it was the EXTREMELY high winds that prevented any containment. My in-laws lived up there and when I visited the first time it seemed a lot of people loved the fact that their houses were blocked from view due to all of those trees. I said this is extremely dangerous for when a fire starts up.You also needed a special permit to remove a tree from your own property.