California has unveiled a groundbreaking regulation requiring insurance companies to provide coverage in wildfire-prone regions, addressing a long-standing gap in protection for homeowners in high-risk areas. The policy, announced by Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara and reported by The Guardian, aims to stabilize the state’s insurance market amid the escalating threat of wildfires and other natural disasters.
What the New Regulation Requires
The regulation mandates that insurers gradually increase their coverage in wildfire-prone areas to ensure broader access for homeowners. By 2026, insurers must ensure that 85% of their policies include high-risk zones. Key points of the policy include:
- Incremental growth: Insurers will increase their market share in fire-prone areas by 5% every two years.
- Proportional policies: If an insurer writes 20% of policies in California, at least 17% of them must cover high-risk wildfire zones by the final phase.
- Reinsurance pass-through: For the first time, insurers can charge consumers for reinsurance, a cost that helps them manage catastrophic risks like wildfires.
This marks a significant shift in the state’s approach, allowing insurers to offset their growing risks while expanding coverage to underserved communities.
Reducing Reliance on the Fair Plan
California’s Fair Access to Insurance Requirements (FAIR) plan has historically served as a safety net for homeowners who cannot secure traditional insurance. However, reliance on the FAIR plan has surged, with policy numbers doubling since 2020. By expanding traditional insurers’ presence in high-risk areas, the state aims to ease the strain on the FAIR plan and provide homeowners with more stable and comprehensive options.
Context and Controversy
The regulation is part of a broader effort to address the insurance crisis fueled by climate change, which has made wildfires more frequent and destructive in California. Towns like Paradise, which suffered catastrophic losses during the 2018 Camp Fire, highlight the urgent need for reliable insurance options. Mayor Steve Crowder supported the initiative, emphasizing its importance for communities rebuilding in the wake of disasters.
However, critics argue the policy could lead to higher premiums for homeowners, with estimates of increases up to 40%. Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog, criticized the regulation as overly beneficial to insurers, stating, “This plan is of the insurance industry, by the insurance industry, and for the industry.”
Comparing Benefits and Concerns
The regulation has sparked debate between those prioritizing access to insurance and those worried about affordability. Below is a comparison of the key benefits and concerns:
| Aspect | Benefit | Concern |
|---|---|---|
| Access to insurance | Expanded coverage in high-risk areas | Higher premiums for homeowners |
| FAIR plan dependence | Reduced reliance on emergency safety-net policies | Slow implementation timeline |
| Consumer costs | Long-term stabilization of insurance market | Additional reinsurance costs passed on |
The regulation, now under review by California’s Office of Administrative Law, is expected to take effect within 30 days. Commissioner Lara described it as “a historic moment for California,” emphasizing the need for a resilient insurance market that supports vulnerable communities.
Got a reaction? Share your thoughts in the comments
Enjoyed this article? Subscribe to our free Newsletter for captivating articles, exclusive content, and the latest news.
Require Insurers to include HO and/or other Personal Lines experience from other states where they write business so that the risk is spread more broadly. The whole premise of insurance is to spread the risk of a few among as many as possible. Right now carriers can cherry pick too much. They may be losing writing HO on California but very profitable in other states.
The current proposal likely will have homeowners of more average size homes subsidizidizing those with larger and/or higher square foot costs. If we’re going to adopt the proposed model then start by basing premium on the home’s per SF replacement cost. Other structure costs like pools, cabanas, retaining walls should be solely born by those who have them.
Also, there need to be changes in building codes for those building home’s in high risk fire, flood or EQ zones. If we rush to rebuild exactly what was there before the fires, then we’ll have same losses again and again.
The result will be the same as with ObamaCare: astronomical premiums, bad coverage, exodus of the insurance companies from CA.
“If you like your insurance company – you can keep your insurance company!”