California Wants to Force Insurers to Reward Homeowners for Fireproofing Homes

California’s Department of Insurance wants to require insurers to take homeowners’ efforts to reduce wildfire risk into account when setting premiums

When Ashley Raveche and her husband bought their home in Mill Valley, they thought they were doing everything right. The 1,300 square foot house already had vents with screens that make it harder for embers to get in and a tar and gravel roof, top-rated for fire safety. They installed double-paned windows, which are less likely to explode under extreme heat. They cut down four trees within 10 feet of their house. They kept the gutter and roof clear, and the local fire marshal performed an annual inspection.

But their efforts — totaling more than $10,000, by Raveche’s estimation — weren’t enough to insure their home in Marin County. In February, their insurance company said it wouldn’t renew the policy because the “risk is unacceptable”

“I panicked,” she said. “I was just like, ‘This is too much, we are doing absolutely everything we possibly can.’”

It was the second time an insurance company had declined to renew her home insurance coverage in five years, she said.

“I panicked,” she said. “I was just like, ‘This is too much, we are doing absolutely everything we possibly can.’”

It was the second time an insurance company had declined to renew her home insurance coverage in five years, she said.

New fire insurance guidelines The proposed rules, rolled out in February, require insurance companies to do several things, including:

*Make the models or tools they use to assess wildfire risk public, and require that companies send individual policyholders their wildfire risk scores on a regular basis

*Explain to policyholders what specific factors influenced each consumer’s score, what they could do to lower their score, and how much they can expect to see their premium go down if they take the actions outlined by the insurance company

*When setting prices, insurers would have to take into account whether a homeowner or commercial property owner has reduced a property’s wildfire risk by taking specified steps, including clearing vegetation from under decks and installing fire-resistant vents

*When setting prices, insurers would have to take into account whether a home is in one of three types of fire risk-reduction communities, such as Firewise.

*The state Department of Insurance also proposed giving policyholders the right to appeal their wildfire risk scores.

Part of the goal is to provide incentives to more people to protect their properties from wildfires. “Money is tight for most people,” said Amy Bach, executive director of United Policyholders, a consumer group. “If I have a choice between spending money on taking out my favorite tree, and, like, buying a new flatscreen, I’m going to buy a new flatscreen, right?” There has to be a compelling reason for people to do things they don’t want to do, she said.

“Home hardening” is aimed at reducing a house’s risk of burning during a blaze. There’s evidence to suggest it works, too: A 2020 study from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners found that “structural modifications can reduce wildfire risk up to 40%, and structural and vegetation modifications combined can reduce wildfire risk up to 75%.”

California already regulates insurance more than a lot of other products. Insurers, for example, can’t just increase their prices whenever they want to — they have to submit their pricing plans to the insurance department for approval. But, says Bach, that’s in part because they have an advantage most industries don’t: People must buy their product in order to get a mortgage.

“They sell economic security,” said Bach. “They have a special obligation.”

That’s why it’s stressful for homeowners when an insurance company decides it will no longer cover them.

When homeowners can’t find a private company to cover them, they can turn to the state-created FAIR Plan, which offers bare bones coverage, often at higher cost. Coverage through the FAIR Plan is intended as “a temporary safety net” until a homeowner can find other coverage.

“A loophole that can swallow the rule” Steve Poizner, who lives 15 minutes from the San Jose airport, said he took some extra steps to protect his home after an insurance agent came out to inspect the property. He said he upgraded his fireproof vents and cleared vegetation around the house, and the company gave him a policy.

“That was that. For years,” Poizner told CalMatters. Then, he said, early this year he got a letter. His insurance company wouldn’t renew his coverage, he said, and he was “stunned.” Poizner is no naif: He was California’s insurance commissioner from 2007 to 2011.

The number of Californians who are not renewed by their insurance companies each year increased in 2019, according to insurance department data, after especially damaging wildfires in 2017 and 2018. It’s a small share of policyholders: less than 3%, according to the department. The numbers are higher in areas with greater fire risk. Temporary bans on non-renewals in areas hit by wildfires, imposed by Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, have helped, although the issue is still a key part of the election race for insurance commissioner.

It’s far from certain the numbers will stay low. The number of California properties facing severe wildfire risk will grow sixfold over the next 30 years, according to projections from First Street Foundation, a nonprofit.

Three consumer groups — Consumer Watchdog, Consumer Federation of America and Consumer Federation of California — sent feedback to the insurance department, pointing to what they see as a loophole: The rules require insurers to take home-hardening efforts into account when setting prices, but not when deciding whether to cover someone or renew a policy.

“A homeowner could literally rebuild their home in concrete, in the middle of a concrete field, and still be non-renewed by an insurance company,” said Carmen Balber, executive director of Consumer Watchdog.

Insurance department spokesperson Michael Soller rejected the term “loophole.” He pointed to the department’s initial reasoning for the rules and expected benefits, which says insurance companies “may become more comfortable writing and retaining policies for properties with completed mitigation actions, even if the property is located in an area with a higher overall risk of wildfire.”

Not wading into coverage decisions may also have been a pragmatic decision for the department. Insurers would be more likely to sue over rules that mandate coverage, since the department’s authority to regulate coverage decisions is not clear cut, said Michael Wara, a lawyer and climate scholar at Stanford Law School. A suit could keep the rules from going into effect for years.

“This may be a situation where you kind of have to choose between doing something that’s sort of pretty good — maybe even really good — but not perfect,” said Wara.

Insurers want to protect their risk tools Consumer groups aren’t the only ones pushing back against the proposal. Trade organizations representing insurers have their own set of concerns.

One is that the science on wildfire mitigation is still developing, said Mark Sektnan, vice president for state government relations for American Property Casualty Insurance Association, a trade group. That means there may not be good data on exactly how much one strategy — or several — reduces a homeowner’s fire risk, and insurers need data to decide how much of a discount to offer.

The proposed rules, for example, would require companies to take into account whether a home is in a “Fire Risk Reduction Community,” a new certification created by the state Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. The criteria for the certification was finalized last month, according to Edith Hannigan, the Board’s executive officer, and the list of the communities that meet the requirements is yet to be released. There hasn’t been any significant analysis on how much safer certified communities are, since it’s brand new, Hannigan said.

That’s problematic, said Seren Taylor, senior legislative advocate for Personal Insurance Federation of California, another insurance industry trade group, because everything in insurance “is about understanding risk and having data.”

The new program was “established with the expertise of the Board of Forestry, with consideration of community programs like Firewise,” said Michael Soller, a spokesperson for the Department of Insurance.

Another concern Taylor cited has to do with intellectual property. Many insurers rely on models, often provided by separate companies, to assess the risk of wildfire to a particular home or area, taking into account factors like the slope a home is on, or the kind of roof it has. The rules require insurers to make those models public.

“These companies spend tens of millions of dollars building complex computer models,” said Taylor, and they want to create models that are more accurate than their competitors.

“What our folks are concerned about is that these modelers will say, ‘Well, we’re not going to use our most innovative new models, because why would we invest in that technology if we’re just going to have to hand it to our competitors? So we’ll give you version 2.0, but you’re not going to have version 4.0,’” Taylor said.

Still, he said, the federation completely agrees with the goals of the proposed rules — they point in the direction some insurers are already heading.

Currently 20 insurance companies voluntarily give homeowners some kind of discount for reducing their wildfire risk, according to the insurance department.

Raveche’s community, meanwhile, is using some cutting edge measures to prepare for wildfire.

More than 250 Mill Valley residents piled into their cars to simulate an evacuation, with Google researchers standing by and gathering data to model traffic flow. Her community partnered with NASA, so fire officials can access high-quality satellite images during an active fire, she said. Raveche, who is a board member of her fire district, just wrote a guide for short-term rentals so that visitors can figure out evacuation routes and sign up for emergency alerts.

After her insurer declined to renew her policy in February, she was able to get coverage from another company. But despite her many efforts, she’s not optimistic it will last.

“I think it’ll probably be covered for two years, maybe three,” she said. “And then I see them dropping us.”

I think a partially controlled burn of the entire state is in order...controlled only at the state lines. Leave the politicians and illegal aliens in place to be barbequed for the buzzards.

"Southern California firefighters still talk about the Miracle House on Skyline Drive.

"The Laguna Beach street was lined with ash, rubble, and solitary chimneys; all remnants of recently burned-out homes. But in the middle of the devastation stood a single white, stucco-sided home, its walls untouched and its volcanic pumice roof unscathed.

The house was the sole survivor on Skyline during the 1993 Laguna Beach Fire, which took 366 homes.

Firefighters say the the miracle house is proof that homes — even homes built in extreme fire zones — can survive the most brutal wildfires.

“If homes are built right, you can increase the chances of survival,” said Orange County Fire Authority Capt. Larry Kurtz.

“But their efforts — totaling more than $10,000, by Raveche’s estimation — weren’t enough to insure their home in Marin County. In February, their insurance company said it wouldn’t renew the policy because the “risk is unacceptable” “

If they can afford to live in Marin County, then they can also self-insure.

Leave it up to those commies in Moscow... uh, I mean, Sacramento.. to tell businesses how to run their business, instead of leaving it up to the marketplace... Always works so well.

Pretty amazing...

That roof alone makes the place a lot more safe.

Makes you wonder if the other homes had shake roves.

Seems like the searing heat from the other homes, would have
made the place burst into flames.

Great picture.

I recall a similar 'miracle house, this one was in west LA foothills area. The owner had a submersible pump in a wet pit, linked to his pool. The pump discharged into a fire sprinkler array that was on his roof and also to multiple discharge points on 10 ft. high pipes attached to his fencing

The story I read (years ago) was that he waited until the fire came, turned on the pump, then jumped into the pool wearing scuba gear. His house was saved, others in the area burned down.

Those fires move pretty fast so his time in the pool would not have been very long. Not sure if he also had a back-up generator, but likely he did.

If a homeowner does all this....

http://www.nfpa.org/Public-Education/Fire-causes-and-risks/Wildfire/Preparing-homes-for-wildfire

...the homeowner ought get a break.

Unless all that prep doesn’t really reduce risk that much.

“Makes you wonder if the other homes had shake roofs”

No. These were all fairly new homes and shakes had already been prohibited for a long time.

IIRC this house was designed by a Vietnamese architect who had worked in Germany before returning to SoCal.

He had used a few techniques that he had learned in Germany. Fairly simple stuff too and not expensive. No exposed wood surfaces. No overhangs that could trap superheated air. Double paned windows that would deflect heat. Ember proof roof vents or no vents at all. Thicker than normal stucco

I’m working off of memory, there were good articles on how he had modified the construction. I’m surprised it isn’t required in all of our brushfire zones. As if any of us aren’t in a fire zone. Some of the monster fires along the 91 burned down houses maybe three miles from me. Close enough that embers were a real concern.

I remember seeing a television interview with this guy following the fires. It was amazing seeing his house untouched among a neighborhood of burnt down homes.

Of course California never learned any lessons from this to apply to state building codes. California doesn’t even clear brush that would help cut down on yearly wildfires.

Thanks for the follow up.

Didn’t realize it was such a new sub-division. Sad...

Very nice.

The thicker stucco seems like it would just get saturated
with heat, and fail at some point. Maybe it can take it
long enough for the other home to burn past it’s most
heated phase.

Interesting stuff.

It does seem like these homes would have a minimum fire
standard doesn’t it.

If done right, the additional cost may be negligible.

I’ve heard that people trying to ride out a wildfire in their swimming pool don’t always make it. The intense blast of heat from the flame front can sear their lungs. Although maybe the SCUBA gear that guy used might make the difference.

Sometimes an otherwise fireproof house will get burned out from the inside. The blast of heat from the giant flame front will radiate through intact windows and ignite furniture inside the house. External roll-up metal shutters are needed to combat that.

“Of course California never learned any lessons from this to apply to state building codes.”

Apparently so. Probably due to developers “donating” to our wonderful politicians.

“California doesn’t even clear brush that would help cut down on yearly wildfires.”

Rule by environmental extremists. I’ve heard of people getting fined for trying to clear out dead trees without permission.

“If done right, the additional cost may be negligible.”

Compared to getting burned down to the foundation it ought to be negligible.

I just looked up a house rebuilt in that Skyline Drive neighborhood after the fire. 3,300 sq ft will only set you back a cool $4.5 million. The listing doesn’t say one word about it using any fire resistant building techniques. So you can be sure that they didn’t.

Australia being the wildfire capital of the universe has got excellent building guides for fire prone areas. I had a friend whose house was untouched during the big fires just prior to COVID. He had an ICF house with fire rated cladding, roof mounted sprinklers, metal roller shutters on all windows and ember screens on vents/gutters. The pictures of his untouched house in the middle of thousands of acres of ashen wasteland was crazy.

Unfortunately there’s only so much retrofitting fireproofing on older houses that can be done. New builds in fire prone areas have no excuse for not being highly protected from the get go.

FTA: More than 250 Mill Valley residents piled into their cars to simulate an evacuation

A brush destroyed the town of Paradise in northern california and killed many people trying to leave but they were trapped on the now to narrow road after the state mandated years earlier that the town reduce the 4 lanes to 2 lanes in order to get money for road repair.
The result was they murdered the towns people.

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.