| ▲ | lmm a day ago |
| Don't worry, the California government is responding to that by making it illegal to stop offering insurance in the state. That will definitely fix the problem. |
|
| ▲ | owlbite a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| Source? Many companies seem to be stopping offering insurance in the state just fine! The most recent moves seem to be relaxing the pricing rules to allow major disaster pricing and recharging reinsurance rates in exchange for insurers offering more policies in high risk areas. |
| |
| ▲ | nathanaldensr a day ago | parent [-] | | https://www.clydeco.com/en/insights/2025/01/california-wildf... > The Bulletin was issued pursuant to California Insurance Code section 675.1(b)(1), which states that an insurer “shall not cancel or refuse to renew a policy of residential property insurance for a property located in any zip code within or adjacent to the fire perimeter, for one year after the declaration of a state of emergency . . . based solely on the fact that the insured structure is located in an area in which a wildfire has occurred.” | | |
| ▲ | BeetleB a day ago | parent [-] | | I imagine this won't apply if the insurer just leaves the state. | | |
| ▲ | PaulDavisThe1st a day ago | parent [-] | | Yep. These are terms to operate as an insurance company in the state. If you don't want to do that, the rules have no bearing on you. | | |
| ▲ | qeternity 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Which effectively means that anybody in a less risky area of California is just subsidizing those who live in the risky areas. Premia across the board will increase as a result. Typical California redistribution...but this is from the bottom to the top. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | rcpt a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Gotta catch up to Florida |
|
| ▲ | snacksmcgee 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
