CA forces insurers to sell risky policies

This will end badly. Very clumsy. Of course the NYT has to make it into a glo-bull warming article. No mention of why the wildfire problem is limited to CA.

The carrier will just propose crazy high rates which will make the insured choose to drop. I don’t see the value of the moratorium for anyone other then creating busy work since the rate increase is not capped. and if the rate increase is capped, we will all end up subsidizing the people who choose to live in wild fire prone areas which I am not interested in.

Homeowner policies already exclude flood and land movement. Perhaps they should exclude wildfire as well. The flooding of Palo Ato in '97 was instructive. The cause - as with the current wildfires - was goverment ineptitude. San Franciscito creek hadn’t been cleared of debris in decades. Exclusion of wildfire damage from homeowner policies - like exclusion of flooding - would put the onus for risk management where it belongs.

1 Like

I wonder how much wildfire is in percentage of total losses? Was the Oakland fire an urban fire or a wildfire? I remember stories of the Berkeley fire in 1923( my parents house survived). Fires in the October windy season are not new.