Remix clone Hacker News

> 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 3 months ago | parent [-]

I imagine this won't apply if the insurer just leaves the state.

▲

PaulDavisThe1st 3 months 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 3 months 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.

▲

PaulDavisThe1st 3 months ago | parent [-]

> Which effectively means that anybody in a less risky area of California is just subsidizing those who live in the risky areas.

Do you not understand that this is precisely how insurance works?

	▲	qeternity 3 months ago \| parent [-]
		No. That’s not subsidization. Of course insurance is about pooling risk. But subsidizing implies you’re doing it below market rates. If I pay my market rate but still -EV insurance premium, I’m not subsidizing anyone. I’m just happy to pay for the convexity insurance provided. If I have to pay 20% more than I otherwise would, because the insurance company can’t charge someone else 20% more, that is actual subsidization. A subsidy distorts natural market forces. This is what I am talking about. Don’t be so quick to be a dick.