Why did insurance companies pull out of California right before the wild fires?

[dairyair]

Why do you lie about what I posted in that thread? And why are you intentionally detailing your own thread by talking ABOUT me, instead of addressing the topic?

H detailed it quite correct.

 

[Paradoxical]

Funny how TRUMPSTERS never point out how many, many insurance companies have pulled out of Florida...

Pulling out is NOT canceling policies. A carrier is free to not do business and pull up stakes.

As @Captain Adverse said, "Simply because Insurance companies are not stupid. They are in the business to make a profit insuring risk. The lower the risk the more chance for profit. The higher the risk the more chance for loss."

In California the have a state-run insurance company called The Fair Plan which does insure a home in a brush area for fire insurance and the premiums are commensurate with the brush density, miles from the fire department and fire hydrants and what the home is constructed out of. When the decide to not write in brush areas anymore they notify the policy holders with a minimum of 45 days. That gives people the time to get insurance through the Fair Plan. Any suggestions of cancelation just before the fire are lies.

In a town called Paradise, the entire town burned to the ground. In Pacific Palisades the losses are in the billions and climbing. State Farm pulled out of the state now as have other carriers because California is pro consumer and refuses appropriate rate increases.

THIS is what happens when government controls private businesses. They leave. The Fair Plan didn't have nearly the reserves they need for this fire and California will have to cover them. They are raising their already high rates by at least 25%.

Florida is similar. Insurers take a gamble writing insurance; they reinsure for catastrophes and that isn't enough. The people got what they wanted in California. Now they have trouble getting ANY insurance at a decent premium. Ain't gubmint great?

 

[Helix]

That, and it's also the fact that California has far and away the highest total value of real estate. CA residential real estate alone is estimated to be more than $9 trillion. Next closest? FL at about $3 trillion. In fact the value of CA residential real estate is worth more than that of FL, NY, and TX -- combined.

So that's why insurers are trying to drop CA residential real estate like a cigarette butt. Insurers have very sophisticated models. They know what's coming. They know they can't afford to cover the real estate losses they will be expected to cover in the near future.

Thanks for sharing that.

 

[Pyrite]

Why did insurance companies pull out of California right before the wild fires?​

Simply because Insurance companies are not stupid. They are in the business to make a profit insuring risk. The lower the risk the more chance for profit. The higher the risk the more chance for loss.

Those companies were well-aware of both California's crazy water use (read waste) policies, as well as the high risk of annual fires in spring and summer. Especially when the State and local governments were not properly clearing dried brush and fallen timber in order to help prevent such fires. Add to that the improper maintenance of reservoirs, and it was a disaster waiting to happen.

Insurance companies are not renewing contracts, not issuing new contracts, or pulling out in other states as well, including Louisiana and Florida.

Politicizing what is essentially an environmental/climate issue does nothing to try to ameliorate the problem.

 

[stealthycat]

Did you just call a poster on here a jew-hater?

oh gawd ... I just had Inglorious Basterds flashes !!


its too expensive to cover CA houses - that's why they pulled out. No money in it

 

[Pyrite]

Are insurance companies pulling out of Florida because of progressive regulations? Lol

Post #7

No, Jew-hater, they are pulling out for a different reason.

Post #8

`````````````````````````````````

What the heck, @aociswundumho? Name-calling, because you don't have anything else to say? It's your thread. Derailing it makes no sense.

 

[Paradoxical]

Thanks for sharing that.

It's called capitalism and making a profit. Something big gubmint lovers don't know anything about.

If someone makes bread and an agency controls what they can charge, and the price of their materials goes up and the agency says you should have planned better and you're not going to be allowed to double the cost of your bread. what do you do? Go bankrupt?

 

[Paradoxical]

Insurance companies are not renewing contracts, not issuing new contracts, or pulling out in other states as well, including Louisiana and Florida.

Politicizing what is essentially an environmental/climate issue does nothing to try to ameliorate the problem.

It is BS that this is due to any climate change. Total nonsense libral pablum for the masses.

 

[Pyrite]

Insurance companies are not renewing contracts, not issuing new contracts, or pulling out in other states as well, including Louisiana and Florida.

Politicizing what is essentially an environmental/climate issue does nothing to try to ameliorate the problem.

It is BS that this is due to any climate change. Total nonsense libral pablum for the masses.

Post #33

I guess you like to believe that excessive state regulations in Louisiana and Florida, and not hurricanes in the Gulf and the Atlantic, are the reason insurers are not issuing new contracts, not renewing current contracts, and/or are pulling out altogether in those states....right?

 

[Helix]

It's called capitalism and making a profit. Something big gubmint lovers don't know anything about.

If someone makes bread and an agency controls what they can charge, and the price of their materials goes up and the agency says you should have planned better and you're not going to be allowed to double the cost of your bread. what do you do? Go bankrupt?

ok

 

[Paradoxical]

Post #33

I guess you like to believe that excessive state regulations in Louisiana and Florida, and not hurricanes in the Gulf and the Atlantic, are the reason insurers are not issuing new contracts, not renewing current contracts, and/or are pulling out altogether in those states....right?

I have gone over this with the libs of DP before. When people build in a swamp they should expect alligators, snakes and mosquitos. Centuries ago, brush fires were allowed to burm because there was littlke reason to put them out. Now people build in forests and are surprised that a brush fire burned down the trees and their house with it.

With the hurricanes of 200 years ago, how many homes were blown down or flooded? Oh, WAIT! There weren't any houses then.

 

[Pyrite]

This is a real and ongoing problem which will likely only get worse. Going for the simplistic answer - too much government regulation - isn't going to do a damn thing to mitigate the fact that homeowners are being or are in danger of being shut out of the home insurance market.

AND, of course, potential homebuyers won't be able to secure mortgages if they cannot purchase homeowners' insurance.

 

[memberya2]

You guessed it: progressive regulation

It has nothing to do with progressives or the left california gets very hot and has alot of wild fires (trust me i would know i lived there) so home insurance doesnt wanna cover fire damage because of how much of a risk it is.

 

[memberya2]

My city was burning it was called the Carr fire i had to flee and go to another city hoping the damage wasnt too bad looking back at the huge flames from the car.

 

[Pyrite]

My city was burning it was called the Carr fire i had to flee and go to another city hoping the damage wasnt too bad looking back at the huge flames from the car.

A friend at the VFW returned in late January from visiting family who lived in one of the areas affected by the wildfires. They had to evacuate once (from the daughter's home). Flames were visible on the drive to the airport (for the return trip).

 

[rahl]

Let's find out:

Did the Jews murdered by Hitler have the right to live?

I expect you will evade the question, as usual.

Lying about me answering doesn’t make the written record of the forum showing my answer go away lol.

Because antisemitism is morally repugnant.

Lying about me is more so lol.

 

[rahl]

H detailed it quite correct.

He lied. You know that.

 

[Ethel2]

It has nothing to do with progressives or the left california gets very hot and has alot of wild fires (trust me i would know i lived there) so home insurance doesnt wanna cover fire damage because of how much of a risk it is.

I live here too. The problem is that insurance companies have to deal with CA bureocracy in order to raise rates-and that takes forever. Furthermore, they are not allowed to raise rates enough to cover the cost of doing business. In addition they cannot raise rates (historically-not sure if this is still true) based on projections of where fires may occur, only where they HAVE occurred in the past with no consideration of where fires may occur in the future based on the risk in that location. Add that to the fact that some but not all areas are in fire zones and you get the result: they are pulling out, not renewing policies, and not issuing new policies. Getting reinsurance (insurance for insurance companies) is harder to get now. Many people here are turning as a result of being unable to get insurance through insurance companies to the state sponsored "California Fair Plan", and expensive bare bones fire insurance that only covers damage and loss from fires-you STILL have to buy homeowners insurance for damage and loss from everything else. Furthermore, if California Fair has insufficient funds to pay for losses those who carry that policy can be assessed an additional premium to cover the difference, as is likely to happen to cover the losses from the LA fires.
Yes, its pretty screwed up. Personally I think insurance companies should be allowed to charge the actual cost of doing business here without the red tape. If you can't afford homeowners insurance then you can't afford a home. Mortgage companies require it.

 

[upsideguy]

It is BS that this is due to any climate change. Total nonsense libral pablum for the masses.

It absolutely is climate change. You can have your head in the sand about this, but its actually what the insurance industry is discussing, which has led to some companies exiting states most affected, including California, Florida and Louisiana. Also at risk will be Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Nevada and Arizona, all states that are expected to be most impacted by the consequences of global warming.

Insurance Companies Prepare for Risk from Climate Change

Climate change presents significant risk for the insurance industry. Five key actions could help insurers mitigate exposure and boost resilience.

www2.deloitte.com

The uninsurable world: how the insurance industry fell behind on climate change

Surge in floods and fires has caught out the insurance industry and added an ‘uncertainty factor’ to premiums

www.ft.com

Climate Change and Its Undeniable Impact on Insurance: How To Respond? | Insights | Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Climate change will interfere with insurers’ risk predictions and pricing policies. They may need to work with clients on new types of coverage, apply novel technology and collaborate with governments and other entities.

www.skadden.com

The Florida insurance crisis: Why are insurance companies leaving Florida?

The Florida insurance crisis is worsening as home insurance companies leave the state, while those that stay raise rates. Find out what's causing the Florida insurance crisis and what you can do.

www.insurance.com

How insurance can help combat climate change

In the transition to a green economy, firms can play a critical role in helping the insurance industry and climate change manage physical and transition risk.

www.mckinsey.com

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1877343523001598

You can stick your head in the sand and listen to "news" that lies to you so that you can soothe your inner-ostrich, but the people that are actually experts in the insurance business (see above) recognize climate change as a reality and a threat to the insurance industry. They are trying to steer the industry businesses accordingly.

 

[Paradoxical]

It absolutely is climate change. You can have your head in the sand about this, but its actually what the insurance industry is discussing.

Insurance Companies Prepare for Risk from Climate Change

Climate change presents significant risk for the insurance industry. Five key actions could help insurers mitigate exposure and boost resilience.

www2.deloitte.com

The uninsurable world: how the insurance industry fell behind on climate change

Surge in floods and fires has caught out the insurance industry and added an ‘uncertainty factor’ to premiums

www.ft.com

Climate Change and Its Undeniable Impact on Insurance: How To Respond? | Insights | Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Climate change will interfere with insurers’ risk predictions and pricing policies. They may need to work with clients on new types of coverage, apply novel technology and collaborate with governments and other entities.

www.skadden.com

I have read those and those are all opinions and claims.

What we have are people building in very high-risk areas for hurricanes, floods and fires and the insurers gambling that there would be no catastrophes. I moved to Arizona and in a fire prone area. In the past two years they have been building new tracts everywhere and these are in forested areas with many pine trees. Now, in the past when there were brush fires in the areas they are now building in, the brush fires went unnoticed. If a fire were to hit today and wipe out a thousand homes that weren't there 10 years ago, the climate nazis would say "Global warming".

 

[PNW Guy]

It's just legal gambling, and corporate evil will suck every dollar possible out of any industry, but Old Trippies are sure scared someone will find the closet full of skeletons clearly. All you MAGGOTZ schooled again deftly in one blow, dumbass overzealous hippiez 2!

 

[upsideguy]

I have read those and those are all opinions and claims.

What we have are people building in very high-risk areas for hurricanes, floods and fires and the insurers gambling that there would be no catastrophes. I moved to Arizona and in a fire prone area. In the past two years they have been building new tracts everywhere and these are in forested areas with many pine trees. Now, in the past when there were brush fires in the areas they are now building in, the brush fires went unnoticed. If a fire were to hit today and wipe out a thousand homes that weren't there 10 years ago, the climate nazis would say "Global warming".

They are EXPERT opinions -- Deloitte, McKinsey...... and you offer nothing but denial and personal anecdotes. We all have noticed that you have offered NO expert opinion that counters this, because you can not and have never seen one. All you have is anecdotes, which are not an argument unless the proposition is an all or none, which this is not. Climate change is a very real thing, which insurance companies and the military are each figuring out how to navigate.

You can choose to sit on the sidelines of reality, and stroke your inner ostrich, but experts in the field are dealing with the financial impacts of climate change. No one is interested in your unsubstantiated denials... Saying things over and over again without offering proof makes for a rather boring poster...

Pulling out is NOT canceling policies. A carrier is free to not do business and pull up stakes.

Pulling out usually means not writing any new policies NOR renewing existing policies. It means the insurer wants no part of the risk of a particular area.

As @Captain Adverse said, "Simply because Insurance companies are not stupid. They are in the business to make a profit insuring risk. The lower the risk the more chance for profit. The higher the risk the more chance for loss."

In California the have a state-run insurance company called The Fair Plan which does insure a home in a brush area for fire insurance and the premiums are commensurate with the brush density, miles from the fire department and fire hydrants and what the home is constructed out of. When the decide to not write in brush areas anymore they notify the policy holders with a minimum of 45 days. That gives people the time to get insurance through the Fair Plan. Any suggestions of cancelation just before the fire are lies.

In a town called Paradise, the entire town burned to the ground. In Pacific Palisades the losses are in the billions and climbing. State Farm pulled out of the state now as have other carriers because California is pro consumer and refuses appropriate rate increases.

THIS is what happens when government controls private businesses. They leave. The Fair Plan didn't have nearly the reserves they need for this fire and California will have to cover them. They are raising their already high rates by at least 25%.

Again, the same thing is happening in Florida and Louisiana where your criticisms of government regulations are not valid.

Farmers Insurance is the 4th major insurer to leave Florida, underlining insurance crisis

Farmers Insurance is the fourth major insurer to pull out of Florida, adding to the growing number of companies that have become insolvent or left.

www.pnj.com

Florida stung by insurance 'exodus' as insurers dump residents

A new Senate committee report found that an exodus of home insurers from Florida is exacerbating the state's crisis in the sector.

www.newsweek.com

Florida Insurance Crisis: Why Are Insurance Companies Leaving?

Florida homeowners are facing an insurance crisis as major insurers are pulling out of the state. What is behind this trend and what is being done about it?

crosscountryvalet.com

More insurance companies pull out of Louisiana: 'We are in a crisis'

Thousands of Americans living in the southern United States no longer have home insurance due to companies leaving the region after years of crushing storms.

www.foxbusiness.com

Florida is similar. Insurers take a gamble writing insurance; they reinsure for catastrophes and that isn't enough. The people got what they wanted in California. Now they have trouble getting ANY insurance at a decent premium. Ain't gubmint great?

https://thehill.com/changing-america/sustainability/climate-change/527644-the-us-states-best-and-least-positioned-to/

 

[PNW Guy]

I have read those and those are all opinions and claims.

What we have are people building in very high-risk areas for hurricanes, floods and fires and the insurers gambling that there would be no catastrophes. I moved to Arizona and in a fire prone area. In the past two years they have been building new tracts everywhere and these are in forested areas with many pine trees. Now, in the past when there were brush fires in the areas they are now building in, the brush fires went unnoticed. If a fire were to hit today and wipe out a thousand homes that weren't there 10 years ago, the climate nazis would say "Global warming".

You're likely just scum with skeletonz punk.. That's obviouz as fux to anyone can see, or yer crazy... (IMO) DISS ****in' SMITHED!

 

[Paradoxical]

They are EXPERT opinions -- Deloitte, McKinsey...... and you offer nothing but denial and personal anecdotes. We all have noticed that you have offered NO expert opinion that counters this, because you can not and have never seen one. All you have is anecdotes, which are not an argument unless the proposition is an all or none, which this is not. Climate change is a very real thing, which insurance companies and the military are each figuring out how to navigate.

You can choose to sit on the sidelines of reality, and stroke your inner ostrich, but experts in the field are dealing with the financial impacts of climate change. No one is interested in your unsubstantiated denials... Saying things over and over again without offering proof makes for a rather boring poster...


Pulling out usually means not writing any new policies NOR renewing existing policies.



Again, the same thing is happening in Florida and Louisiana were your criticisms of government regulations are not valid.

What we have here is failure to communicate.

Just because some group or person uses Global warming as an exuce as to why insurers are pulling out of states does not mean that it is true that any climate change has cause more brush fires or more severe brush fires, or more hurricanes or more severe hurricanes. You are attempting to use people "in authority" without having to prove what those people are alleging. This is what Christians do when they rely on pastors and priests to lead them by the nose.

But, pray tell, (pun intended) how may homes burned down or were flooded 200 years ago in areas where there were no homes?

 

[upsideguy]

What we have here is failure to communicate.

Just because some group or person uses Global warming as an exuce as to why insurers are pulling out of states does not mean that it is true that any climate change has cause more brush fires or more severe brush fires, or more hurricanes or more severe hurricanes. You are attempting to use people "in authority" without having to prove what those people are alleging. This is what Christians do when they rely on pastors and priests to lead them by the nose.

But, pray tell, (pun intended) how may homes burned down or were flooded 200 years ago in areas where there were no homes?

What an incredibly weak retort, obvious to anyone reads this. There is no "failure to communicate". The only failures here are your weak understanding of the issue at hand, weak debate skills and, it seems, a degree of intellectual laziness, at least on this subject.

First, the topic at hand is "why are insurance companies leaving California".... to which there are numerous uninformed posts, including yours. When information is put together that actually addresses the issue at hand, people, including you can't deal with it because it stands contrary to your ill-informed world view, so we get really weak arguments as you have put forth.

Expert opinion is how the world works; its how debate works. No one is an expert in all things, so we rely on those that study a subject and live an issue. You can not have a court case, unless its in a TV court, without expert opinion. A court case is a formal debate. You have no expert opinion in your favor, and the other side does, you are generally going lose in court.

So you know, I never expect to convince the person I am engaging with, but I do enjoy taking their line of reasoning apart. If you think you have argued your point well here, you are deluded. You are defenseless on the subject because you have no facts, no experts or even much logic behind any of your thinking in this subject. On this matter, you are intellectually naked before all of us because you are just wrong.

Either stick to subjects you actually know something about, or learn how to back up your opinions with experts.