Thousands of Los Angeles homeowners were dropped by their insurers before the Palisades Fire
Thousands of Los Angeles homeowners were dropped by their insurers before the Palisades Fire
About 1,600 policies for Pacific Palisades homeowners were dropped by State Farm in July, the state insurance office says.
Perhaps the most interesting part of the article:
Speaking of the Palisades fire, I'm not sure if anyone has looked into this yet, but they probably should:
Fact-check that, Sugar-Mountain!
It's true. I read it on the internet.
Everyone is saying it.
Oh please please, keep em coming
Wow, really compelling stuff. Zuckerberg really is a monster
Insurance companies are scummy but the headline phrasing makes it seem like they JUST canceled the policies....but no, it was 6 months ago.
As much as I want to hate them for it, can you really blame them? Insurance operates under the measured assumption that most people won't have to use it for some major. When wildfires become probable, it's almost guaranteed to cost them exponentially more than homeowners paid in premiums.
Even if insurance cost $50,000/year, it would take several years of payments to cover the payout. And California has wildfires yearly.
Especially for the palisades $3,500,000 homes.
At $50,000 a year it would take 70 years of payments.
Well, it should be proportional to the value they're covering * the risk of loss, so they're probably paying much more than $50000/year.
For some reason you made me think of banks being covered by government insurance. In a way you'd think the government would also insure land, seeing as that's one of the main things they protect.
The logistics would probably be horrible for that type of thing though.
Government can print money when appropriate and not abused. Payments directly to the general public are the best type of stimulus. Take a bad situation and make it a stimulus.
Part two though has to be that they are not allowed to receive a payout more than once or make it illegal to build new construction in wildfire zones until they have figured out the forest management issues.
You don't have to drop the entire area though, you just have to drop forest fires as a claimable item.
Then people can make a decision on if that's okay for them, or try to find someone else.
Would this not most likely still cause the same kind of financial collapse in the housing market that was mentioned as a possibility in the article linked by OP? If it is not possible to get insurance for an event (i.e. wildfire) that is likely(/definitely going) to occur, then I imagine buyers/real-estate developers would be less inclined to pay high prices in those regions.
This is why insurance shouldn't be for profit.
Insurances need to cover their expected cost with the rates, otherwise they won't be able to cover in case of an incident. Nobody will run an insurance expecting a loss, and you can't force anyone to.
The alternative is like when we had flood that the state bails out the boomers who bought houses when they were cheap in areas where insurance won't insure because of risk, paid with taxes by people like me who have a hard time acquiring property because taxes and other cost are so high due to decisions their generation and earlier ones made.
Of course, this is somewhat exaggerated; they also pay taxes. But it's also not completely wrong.
In the particular case of a previous colleague's house getting flooded, I always had to think of the fact that she chose to fly a certain route for work to save about 2 hours because it's just so much more convenient than the train.
I mean it would have happened with it without her flying, but still thought about it.
As much as I want to hate them for it, can you really blame them?
Yes; go sue big oil who fucking knew since the 60’s climate change was inevitable if nothing changed. Make those fuckers pay dearly.
wow, its almost as if we should cut off the heads of insurance CEOs and nationalize them all into one low cost government plan thats paid for with pennies on the dollar in taxes.
lol, who am I kidding. Idiot Americans will always prefer paying 3000 dollars for bad coverage, rather than pay 100 in taxes for great coverage.
With climate change, there is no option for “low cost” plan, government or no.
You can’t constantly have massive losses like these fires in a single area all paying out claims and expect to pay them off with low premiums.
I haven't seen it in the comments yet but this is just the death spiral of climate change. Everything will just get worse from here on out as long as society operates the way it does. To everyone's "surprise" I'm sure.
Yeah, I really do wonder when the government and rest of the people start to seriously consider if it is worth it dropping $50 billion on places like SoCal and South Florida every few years or so. At some point you need to do the math and ask hard questions about whether it is worth it, and the answer damn well may be no.
Yeah the point flew way over that guys head
Or, you know, tackle climate change. But both are equally unlikely.
You'd think that insurance companies would be on the forefront of pushing climate change mitigation and prevention specifically because the impacts of worsening climate change will have a massive impact on their bottom line.
Maybe they can counter some of the petro company propaganda with their own marketing.
BUT MUH TAXESS
That is what confuses me. Nationalized Healthcare, even an extensively covered one (with dental, optical, and prescription meds included) will be much cheaper overall than the private bullshit happening now.
I never understood how privatization advocates so routinely get away with bullshit. How can anyone not see how public program failures are almost always the result of deliberate sabotage.
deliberate sabotage bought and paid for by the private industry, to increase public pressure to move more healthcare to the private sector, so CEOs can make more billions.
and i have no idea. americans are fucking stupid. "Do you want to pay an extra 100 dollars in taxes for great health coverage and no declining what you need?" "NO! I WANT TO PAY 5000 FOR COVERAGE THAT DENIES EVERYTHING, BECAUSE A POOR CEO NEEDS A NEW GOLDEN TOILET ON HIS 8TH YACHT "
When your insurance drops your coverage, that's your cue to GET THE FUCK OUT BEFORE YOU HAVE YET LOST EVERYTHING.
Those actuarial tables are designed from the ground up and refined over literally decades (up to around a century in some cases) to predict risk and while they're not always perfectly accurate they are clearly ENOUGH so that they have made it possible for insurers to remain profitable.
IF THEY KNOW ANYTHING THAT YOU DON'T, THEY ARE DEFINITELY ACTING ON IT.
I know you can't literally just drop everything, or fit absolutely everything that matters to you in your car in a pinch, but you WILL be better off if you've packed up and prepped for transport as many as possible of the things that would hurt you and/or inconvenience you the most to leave behind.
So for those of you who haven't already experienced total loss, learn from this. Prepare yourselves. The people displaced by this will strain many other extant failure points in our society. Shit is about to get MUCH, MUCH WORSE.
Likewise there’s a reason all the billionaires are building bunkers in Hawaii and New Zealand and investing in yachts, that Greenland and northern Canada have new geopolitical and economic importance, and that the Panama Canal is at risk of not being able to get enough traffic across. I’m tired of getting gaslit by climate naysayers.
"Everything is fine!" they say as they stockpile supplies and build secret locations to hide.
The warning bell rang decades ago and we're still ignoring it. There is no escaping or planning around what is to come. It doesn't matter if you move somewhere less impacted by climate change. Those places can't support anywhere close to the amount of people that will need to live there. We'll ruin those places fighting over what scraps remain until there's nowhere left to go.
The entire world basically just tried to ignore COVID and kept burying the bodies hoping everyone would stop caring. (BTW, excess death statistics are still horrifically higher than pre-2019 levels across the world)
Long COVID is a literal debilitating lifelong mental and physical disability but everyone has it now so we just don’t care.
It’s simple. The bourgeois must be eliminated or humanity dies.
I'm already in a place that is less susceptible to climatological ruin. I've resigned myself to the inevitability that billions will die. Regardless, my preparatory steps shall continue to be "make room". I'm going to personally see to it that IF by some miracle I actually manage to survive, I bring as many people with me as possible; failing that, I hope to find a way to enable more people to survive EVEN IF it kills me.
The problem is that people cannot simply get out at scale. The homes themselves are not portable and represent a significant investment that most homeowners cannot afford to lose. An individual can sell, but that requires there being a buyer, so doesn't actually solve the problem.
What is needed here is a government funded relocation program. The government buys houses in eligible areas at market rate (locked in at the time the program starts, as market rate should collapse to 0). Then, the government does nothing, and saves money from not needing to subsidize the insurance market, and need needing to spend as much on disaster response and relief. Given that the disaster relief savings is largely born by the federal government, this program should receive federal funding as well.
This is a terrible idea.
We bought our present home 6 years ago. One house we looked at was in a low lying area, probably less than a metre above the high tide line. We didn't buy that home because I'm not an idiot.
Since the dawn of time people have been building homes in silly places and losing their money as a result. It's a shame.
In the next century there's going to be a great many people displaced due to climate change. Let's not start out by indemnifying those who pretended climate change wasn't a thing.
So someone has say 2 million in real estate and 1.5 million in other Investements. They are at risk of losing some of that 3.5M while still counting themselves wealthy and the government who can't afford to provide a whole laundry list of shit for normal people just hands them a few million to ensure their bad decisions don't cost them anything.
How about we don't subsidize your insurance and if you suck up you just lose your money.
In the US, voters have shown over and over that they don't care if a lot of people become homeless. Why would you expect them to care about people who become homeless because of fires than they do about people who become homeless because of economic conditions?
This is starting to feel more and more like a planned property grab.
I think it's much simpler honestly: fires like these have been happening every year in California for the past hmm... at least 5 years, maybe more. Insurances are simply catching on and doing what any for-profit company would do in this situation, avoid losing money.
There was a wildfire in the area last month. A couple years ago, a wildfire burned down a bunch of Malibu, a few miles away. I would be very surprised if wildfires in the area stop happening.
I think that maybe the most-reasonable solution is for insurers to just ramp rates way up unless a home is built to be extremely fire-resistant -- just assume that there are going to be wildfires that dump embers in the area sooner or later, and that if your home isn't constrained such that it is able to withstand being showered with embers without going up in flames, that it's going to be insanely costly to insure, because it's likely to burn sooner or later.
Wildfires are part of the ecology for basically the whole state. Most of the native plants here have evolved to actually depend on and co-exist with routine fire. It's completely normal and natural for this state to burn. The problem is that for 100 years we decided that it should never ever burn at all, so there were many areas of the state that should have burned at least once every ten years that sat there and accumulated unnatural amounts of growth and fuel for ten times that long. So, when we got hit with a megadrought and a fire finally did happen in those places, it was a crazy slate-wiped fire that nothing survived instead of a manageable brush fire that plenty of things would grow back from next year.
Now, is it all bad land management? No, a bunch of shit came together at once to make this message:
-
California was caught in a mega drought for the better part of a decade and we're still years from our groundwater returning to where it was before the drought.
-
The Japanese pine beetle killed a lot of pine trees, and that's most of what there is in the Sierra range (yes, there are some oaks and other things, but, well, we're getting there, hold on). So many trees died where they stood that dealing with them all was a nearly impossible task, and beetle-killed wood can't really be used for anything (don't ask me why, but when I was wondering why nobody had come to get all this basically free wood just laying around, that was the answer I got). So, you had huge, huge stands of beetle-kill just standing there, getting drier and drier, waiting for a spark.
-
The drought also severely dried out lots of other vegetation. There's people I know in the Sierra who said they didn't even have to season their fresh-cut wood. Just chuck it right in the fire, no problem.
-
Fucking PG&E decided they didn't need to follow best practices because that costs money and spending the money your consumers pay you on stuff that isn't bullshit makes PG&E a sad panda. So, they stopped cutting around their power lines. As someone who partly grew up in the southeast US, this fucking melted my brain. Georgia's a pretty wet, green state, and Georgia Power clear cuts everything down to shin height for probably 50 meters to either side of their transmission lines. Humid-ass Georgia decided they needed it, but we're totally fine to skip it in the Phoenix state, yeah, that makes sense.
So, is climate change to blame? Mostly, yes, climate change is a big, big part of why we're here. Hotter, drier weather with shorter, more intense rain delivery means that the vegetation gets dry faster and stays dry. It means there's less water to fight fires with. That said, it's not the whole picture. There's other ways we could be doing stuff better.
-
Malibu hills fires happened almost every year 20 years ago. Maybe not in areas with homes but it's hardly surprising from the outside looking in. Still pity the folks.
Unfortunately whether intentional or not I think it’ll play out that way specifically for those who could not afford, with time and money, to re-build their homes and buy a new place to live.
For example, parts of Altadena, CA were exempt from redlining, so there is a majority black and brown homeowners in certain neighborhoods who have owned their homes for many years. They couldn’t afford their $1M+ house in today’s market. Insurance will pay them out, but there’s nowhere to live in Altadena now. Maybe some will lease while their home is being rebuilt, but I think many will cash out and buy a new home somewhere else, leaving a lot of opportunity for investors to buy up land and build for-profit housing.
Of course, we now know that insurance companies will not cover some of these properties so may not be a valuable investment, but the community will be forever changed, and I would be surprised if that didn’t include further gentrification.
What? How is it a property grab if no one can live there? Only the stupidest and/or richest people would buy an uninsurable home. You can't get a mortgage without insurance, because the banks want to make sure they still have an asset to repossess if you default. Even if you were that rich, why would you throw your money away on something that will almost certainly be destroyed, sooner rather than later, without a way to recoup any of the cost? If a company like Zillow comes in and snaps up all the uninsurable homes in these regions, they'll be declaring bankruptcy within 5 years.
Maybe? They're not sure if this guy is linked.
Warning: MSN link ahead:
Alleged Arsonist Arrested In Los Angeles Amid Deadly California Wildfires: What We Know
ETA: Also, 3 fires started all at once looks a little wonky in January.
Edit 2:
...though law enforcement officials have said they cannot confirm a connection between the arson suspect and any of the deadly fires currently burning through California.
One of the women involved in the citizen's arrest, Renata Grinshpun, told local news he had a "propane tank or... like a flame thrower" and that someone saw him "behind a van, trying to light something on fire."
Any spark that wasn’t dealt with immediately during Santa Ana’s that severe (60-100 mph gusts, constant wind around 40 mph), and during a severe drought, AND with humidity below 20% was going to blow up.
It is wonky that it happened in January, because historically that’s when we’re getting rain, but that hasn’t happened this water year. For all practical purposes we’re still in the dry season.
The issue isn't just local. "This is predicted to cascade into plunging property values in communities where insurance becomes impossible to find or prohibitively expensive - a collapse in property values with the potential to trigger a full-scale financial crisis similar to what occurred in 2008," the report stressed.
I know this isn't the main point of this threadpost, but I think this is another way in which allowing housing to be a store of value and an investment instead of a basic right (i.e. decommodifying it) sets us up for failure as a society. Not only does it incentivize hoarding and gentrification while the number of homeless continues to grow, it completely tanks our ability to relocate - which is a crucial component to our ability to adapt to the changing physical world around us.
Think of all the expensive L.A. houses that just burned. All that value wasted, "up in smoke". How much of those homes' value is because of demand/supply, and how much is from their owners deciding to invest in their resale value? How much money, how much human time and effort could have been invested elsewhere over the years? Notably into the parts of a community that can more reliably survive displacement, like tools and skills. I don't want to argue that "surviving displacement" should become an everyday focus, rather the opposite: decommodifying housing could relax the existing investment incentives towards house market value. When your ability to live in a home goes from "mostly only guaranteed by how much you can sell your current home" to "basically guaranteed (according to society's current capabilities)", people will more often decide to invest their money, time, and effort into literally anything else than increasing their houses' resale value. In my opinion, this would mechanically lead to a society that loses less to forest fires and many other climate "disasters".
I have heard that Japan almost has a culture of disposable-yet-non-fungible homes: a house is built to last its' builders'/owners' lifetime at most, and when the plot of land is sold the new owner will tear down the existing house to build their own. I don't know enough to say how - or if - this ties into the archipelago's relative overabundance of tsunamis, earthquakes, and other natural disasters, but from the outside it seems like many parts of the USA could benefit from moving closer to this Japanese relationship with homes.
As far as the value of the home, you need to consider rebuilding costs. New construction costs in the LA area are on average $440 and higher for custom work.
At those prices, a new house, without the land, will cost at least $500000 to build (also note that a 1130 sq ft house isn’t really what most people want to buy, as the average new house size is around 2000 sq ft, putting the cost of a basic house at $880000, again without the land).
While I mostly agree with your line of thinking, I do feel the urge to point out that most of the value of property is tied to the land underneath the structure, rather than the building itself.
This is largely why one of those Sears catalogue 2-3 bedroom post-war homes is worth significantly more than a similar footprint modern apartment/townhouse a few doors down.
The houses themselves are often seen as a depreciating asset; and for the more unscrupulous land-bankers, these fires just became free demolition.
I guess what I’m saying is, shit’s even more fucked than you thought.. and until we get rid of milquetoast liberal politicians and replace them with actual populist progressives globally, it will only continue to get worse.
I see this sentiment frequently. What I don't see, though, is how this can cmbe achieved short of government owned uniform housing. Maybe I'm missing something, though. Can you helpe understand?
With regard to Japan, you're right, single family homes aren't intended to last all that long. This is largely because building standards there change so rapidly thst building something that lasts means that you wasted money. Even if it is built to last, it will fall out of code in a way that it will devalue over time.
That doesn't happen in the US because we don't have the same frequency of disasters and the same rate of change in building codes. Maybe that will change moving forward, though, given the increased frequency of disasters in the US due to climate change.
Throw a few of these up in every city. Would go a long ways quickly to solving problems.
We could take notes from Finland: https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/look-finlands-housing-first-initiative
Really cool idea, and comment. I think it would reduce money tied up, but still, would require significant investment to build and maintain
The insurance companies had an obligation to maximize shareholder value. That is the sole purpose of insurance companies.
The insurance companies had an obligation to maximize shareholder value. That is the sole purpose of insurance companies.
Look, I get that this is an easy go-to answer for many things, but please add this to expand your understanding a bit more so you have a more complete picture.
Not all insurance companies are public companies with shareholders to satisfy. Mutual Insurance companies are owned by their policy holders. Specifically with California, both State Farm and Liberty Mutual have both exited too. These are both large insurance companies that are NOT driven by "shareholder value". Profits these companies make are issues as dividends to the policy holders, not shareholders.
So the issue of insuring property in California is more than just the standard "greedy shareholders" argument.
This is a really dumb take. Pulling out of a market where it's impossible to even break even is not greedy or corrupt.
LifeShareholders uh find a way.
Meanwhile the insurance companies are throwing parties right now for pulling out ahead of the disaster. Probably tweaking their models to make sure they're not at risk anywhere else.
Don't worry though, the incoming administration will be working with local governments to prepare for future challenges... Or ignoring them and dismantling any and all efforts to mitigate climate disasters. One or the other.
I think the curious aspect of this is that business is absolutely aware, and acknowledges existence of the climate change.
lol dude climate change has been in companies' drawers since the 1970s, for example shell and such. they just acted as if they didn't know to continue selling at record speeds.
I'm sorry, are we just skipping over the regulations that caused these companies to pull out? Most of these homes would still be covered. They'd be paying a higher price, but they'd be covered.
When you put a legal cap on costs, the company will pull out.
Yea that's just basic economics.
Maybe we should have rules in place that provide more protection for actual human beings instead of prioritizing profit margins or pretending that "Basic Economics" is a universal law rather than a guideline of how people interact with each other. Sorry, I'm not mad at you, just the system we live in
Turns out when you say you cannot charge more than x for a service that costs y to provide, and y>x, no one can sell the service.
Insurance companies fucking suck, but too many think their profits are the ONLY reason there is a problem.
Funny how the rich argue with climate change when it benefits them. For decades they denied it fiercely and now it's time to pay... even if we take all from them (which we should) it's not enough repair the damages their behavior caused.
There are many blue voters who live in areas affected by the Palisades fire
If you have the type of money required to live there you no longer get to be a voter, you gotta be a doer
Blue voters that happily generate more carbon that most of us.
Insurance, both property and health, is completing it's morph into a parasitic value extraction tool with zero actual use. They are committing straight fraud at this point, daring people to sue them for contract breach, knowing many won't
I agree with the first sentence, but I don't think there's a lawsuit here as the contracts that you sign with them have a limited term and they are simply not renewing
Always has been.
Health insurance yes. But property insurance has a use, but these companies have ceased actually providing that service.
Man insurance is such a scam. They'll only actually offer hypothetical coverage if they know you won't need it 😅
Actually need it? "Well, we have to make a profit! Why would we pay for that thing you're paying us to cover?"
I can't help but see it this way too. And healthcare before some of the ACA's protections was similar. "Yes, give us those premiums, everything's looking pretty safe, we've got you covered if something happens! Wink wink, nothing does really, so we've got you!"
And then the moment that changes, it's "woah there, too risky for us, are you crazy? We're gonna lose money! You're on your own". And all the 10s of thousands paid when times were good and there was very little likelihood you'd need help are just gone, and fuck you.
I understand insurance companies only make sense if the risk of paying out heavily is small enough. But still, you paid to be covered when the shit gets bad, they should have to taper down over time or return some premiums or something. Not just "welp thanks for all the money, it looks like we're gonna have to start giving some out soon so we're just gonna stop here while we're ahead". It's just a legal scam.
Man insurance is such a scam. They'll only actually offer hypothetical coverage if they know you won't need it 😅
Actually need it? "Well, we have to make a profit! Why would we pay for that thing you're paying us to cover?"
An insurance company takes the data it has about whatever someone wants to insure, uses its actuarial system to find out what its risk value is, and then charges you slightly more than that value over time.
You will probably never need the service, but if you do, they’ll help you out. Because they’re charging more than the actual risk value, over time and over a large enough subset of clients, they’ll make some profit, even while paying to replace or fix people’s houses. Which is fine, they are providing a service and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with profiting from providing a service. You win, they win, everyone benefits.
In return, you get the peace of mind of knowing that if the worst happens, you’ll be at least somewhat better off and able to afford to rebuild.
If the risk of event X gets too high in an area, and the company isn’t allowed to say, “You’re covered for everything but X,” the company would either need to charge enough to cover essentially the value of the house on such a short timeframe as to be untenable, or stop providing coverage. They don’t have infinite money, so if they‘re forced to provide coverage at a lower rate than the risk level, and something like a massive hurricane or flood or fire happens, they go bankrupt. Now no one gets their house rebuilt.
Just because a company only operates where they make a profit doesn’t make them a scam. They aren’t a charity or a public service.
Yeah it is. I made a claim for hail damage then It made me uninsurable/insane premiums when I moved for 5 year, no fault thing from mother nature but ya know it's my fault they had to pay out. I was told if I made 3 or more claims in 5 years I be uninsurable, hoping my home stays safe from this fire that's 2miles away from me....
The thing is if you buy a home and in California it's likely 1mm plus in the la region. You're paying huge mortgage rate more so with insurance and the recent rates basically house poor. If you loose your house you still have to pay the bank so you can't afford to live anywhere right? So with out insurance buying a home is one step away from being destitute?
It's needs to be a state sponsored thing and nonprofit. Like fire departments if everyone loses their home who's left to taxes, or even stay there.
I live 1 mile from the no insurance zone and in Los Angeles it took me weeks to find anyone to even cover our home after being dropped because "we have a flat roof" we don't, it's bs excuse.
Seems to me non privilege stuff should be a government run thing. Everyone should have a right to health care and housing and food. None of this shit should be for profit, fuck insurance.
Sorry realized I went on a rant.
I'm in a safe-ish area and was told 2 claims in 3 years and they wouldn't renew my insurance. Been here over 20 years and had one claim 10 years ago.
Had lightning hit and called the insurance directly, they opened a claim number but we ended up not using it. Meaning they paid $0 because it turned out to be a simple fix, it was just scary in the moment at 3am with water gushing out (not into the house). So we just paid the $300 to fix it and they closed the claim.
Two years after that we called when a tree hit the house, went a different route and called the independent agent first, not the insurance company directly and that's when we learned if we started a claim for the tree damage, they probably wouldn't renew. Ended up being almost $3000 out of pocket so we can keep the house insured and the mortgage company happy.
Climate change makes risk unpredictable; risk makes insurance unaffordable or unavailable; no insurance makes mortgages unavailable; without mortgages property values crash
Why is it without mortgages property values crash? Is it because sellers are forced to sell to only people who can pay cash? I suppose that makes sense. And of course those won’t be “people”, those will be banks and investment companies, looking to rent the property out to tenants. So more large chunks of money are siphoned away from the middle class.
If a property is at risk and uninsurable, banks won't provide good terms for a mortgage, because ultimately the property is at risk. This means they're either going to lower the mortgage, or increase the rates. This means less money is available to purchase the property, which forces a lower price on the seller (because nobody else could buy, unless they use cash, but why would someone pay cash on an at-risk property?).
Right, but the quote from the article specifically says mortgages will be unavailable. So forget about insurance and mortgages. (If we follow that line of thinking.) so I assume that means only cash buyers.
Man, this thread is reminding me that Lemmy is even worse than Reddit when it comes to being populated by people who have strong opinions about things they don't understand at all.
I FUCKING LOVE MAGNETS
How so?
So many people here are speaking as if real estate insurance companies are doing something evil by pulling out of markets where it's impossible for them to make a profit or even break even. The companies are not reneging on any obligations, just turning away customers they can't afford to insure, and people here are responding by saying things like all insurance is a scam, and the insurance companies abusing their customers to enrich their shareholders.
I get the feeling they're taking their opinions of the private health insurance market and applying them to insurance in general, and in doing so they're demonstrating a lack of understanding of what insurance is for, why it's required for certain purchases, and why people choose to do business with insurance companies even when they don't have to
Did the CEO's house burns down in the wild fire as well?
The insurance companies gotta keep their shareholders happy. That is the number 1 priority and fuck the customer.
I completely get the eat the rich mentality. At the same time, it really doesn't make sense to rebuild some of these places. We're all paying for it one way or another.
/a rub living in a flyover state that's very boring from a climate change perspective, at least so far.
Absolutely, every single homeowner will pay for the insurance company losses. There are plenty of places that should have been left to nature. The entire Florida Oblast should be a National Park.
The map below shows rates of home insurance nonrenewals in recent years. You can explore your state and areas with the highest rates in the country, including California and Western states facing wildfires and Eastern Seaboard states like Florida and the Carolinas with elevated hurricane risk.
This is what fucking insurance is supposed to be for. It's not a way of making obscene profits. It's a way of making reasonable profits providing a service people need.
The US government ought to require insurers to ensure everywhere had a reasonable cost, or get out of the fucking business. They ought to require a base rate everywhere across the nation. Let everyone see what these fuckers are up to.
In Florida the state insures the highest risk people. It's the same damn thing. Should we let the insurance companies have the low risk clients while we the people fund all the high risk clients?
That's bullshit.
It's a way of making reasonable profits providing a service people need.
And 6 months ago they saw that they were likely to take major losses insuring homes in that area so they stopped renewing policies. So the options were to use the last-resort state provided insurance (FAIR Act), go uninsured, or move. A lot of people didn't switch to the state insurance.
They've been collecting insurance payments on those houses WITHOUT LOSSES for many months. What happened to the money they paid over the years? Just consumed and forgotten by insurance companies? You pay $2000 a month for 360 months and then they decide to drop you and you have no coverage? That $700k+ you spent doesn't count?
With life insurance there Whole Life, where you pay until you've paid enough to make the value of the policy and then you stop. This problem could CERTAINLY be fixed. It will have to be legislated, though.
How about no profit?
The US government ought to require insurers to ensure everywhere had a reasonable cost, or get out of the fucking business.
That's literally what's happening at the state level in California. And the insurers got out because they can't cover their operating expenses while charging what the state considers a reasonable cost.
Louisiana be like, let's add a few more refineries, and a ethane cracker plant for good measure
Absolutely sucks, but these are also some of the wealthiest homeowners in the US. Cut your losses and move to less vulnerable areas. Nobody should be building homes in flood plains, lake beds or fire prone areas, particularly the ultra-wealthy. Save FAIR for normal folks and low income families.
Good news! Everywhere is becoming a vulnerable area, so there won't be anywhere that fits your criteria :D
Entire west coast is fire and earthquake prone.
Entire east coast is flood/hurricane prone (as shown by hurricane Helene absolutely destroying asheville, which is in the mountians
Central US keeps getting extreme weather / tornadoes.
Shit's on fire, yo.
I agree when we're talking about Malibu... But lots of other places burnt down where regular people lived (eg. Altadena).
Risk makes insurance unaffordable or unavailable
Insurance should really always be available at some price if you don't cap prices. It might be ludicrously expensive if insurers consider the area to be extremely risky -- and this area has had serious wildfires in past months and years, and I'm sure is probably considered to be quite risky -- but there's going to be some price at which they should make a return, even if they think that there's a pretty good probability that the house is going to burn in some kind of fire in the next N years.
i kinda disagree. no business or government should be required to provide insurance just because you built a structure.
some things can just be not insurable.
I'm not saying that offering insurance to a given property owner should be mandated, but that there's always some price at which providing insurance is worthwhile to an insurer.
Like, say State Farm's model predicts -- as it probably correctly did here -- that a house is most likely going to burn in the near future. Say the next two years, on average. Your annual fire insurance might be half the rebuild cost of your house, but they can still offer it, even at those levels of risk.
If there was no cap on insurance, the market would absolutely fix the “uninsurable” problem. It might cost $90k a month to insure your home, but since they fully expect it to burn down in a few months, they’re likely to take a loss on that insurance.
If you don't cap prices on something the insurer is expecting to be destroyed, wouldn't they just set the price of the policy to be the price of the thing it insures, effectively making it worthless?
It most likely would just be a significant portion. Once a place is hit by fire, it takes a couple of years to be as susceptible again. Or, if it's not been a recent hit, the odds of any individual place being hit in a given year is probably sub 25%.
So the insurance company would probably charge something like 20-25% of the value. Which, yes, is hugely unaffordable for 99.9% of people. But if you're super rich is probably still worth it, as the reason the price is that high is that there's a pretty good chance your house burns down in the next year or two, so you would come out ahead in that scenario.
Then again, once you're rich enough to afford that level of insurance premium, you're probably rich enough to just float the risk yourself. So yeah, probably pretty worthless across the board, even at levels fairly significantly lower than 100% of the replacement cost.
It'll go up, sure. There's nothing magical about the price of the property, though, as a line for making insurance worthwhile. You pay an annual rate, and an insurer will just expect that whatever you're paying over the will pay for the cost of the property within the period of time until they expect the property to burn on average.
If it's a hundred years, it might be -- discounting, for simplicity, the time value of money -- 1% of the property value annually. If it's six months, it might be 200% the value of the property annually. The 100% mark isn't a special line in terms of insurance making sense.
It'd certainly make the property more expensive to own as that percentage goes up, but that's true whether you insure it and spread that risk over many houses or don't insure it and pay for the loss of the thing yourself.
What you propose is illegal in California. It seems like a mildly counterproductive law, but I can't imagine it would make much difference if they were allowed to offer policies nobody can afford anyway.
The exposure isn't quite right and there are artifacts, but I am not a graphic designer so 🤷