Insurance giant halts sale of new home policies in California due to wildfires | California | The Guardian
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
State Farm also cites inflation of construction costs in statement which comes after increasing wildfires in state
The insurance giant State Farm, America's biggest car and home insurer by premium volume, will halt the sale of new home insurance policies in California, citing wildfire risk and inflation of construction costs.
Starting on Saturday, the company will not accept insurance applications for business and personal lines property and casualty insurance. The company will still accept auto insurance applicants.
"State Farm General Insurance Company made this decision due to historic increases in construction costs outpacing inflation, rapidly growing catastrophe exposure, and a challenging reinsurance market," the company said in a statement.
"We take seriously our responsibility to manage risk. We recognize the governor's administration, legislators and the California department of insurance (CDI) for their wildfire loss mitigation efforts. We pledge to work constructively with the CDI and policymakers to help build market capacity in California. However, it's necessary to take these actions now to improve the company's financial strength."
Existing customers insured by State Farm will not be impacted by the decision.
In response to State Farm's statement, a spokesperson with the California department of insurance told Fox Business News that it is working to protect homeowners.
"The factors driving State Farm's decision are beyond our control, including climate change, reinsurance costs affecting the entire insurance industry and global inflation," said the spokesperson.
State Farm is not the only insurance company to disrupt coverage over wildfires. American International Group, a multinational insurance company, notified thousands of California homeowners last year that their policies would not be renewed, the Wall Street Journal reported.
The latest statement from State Farm comes after a bout of wildfires in California last year. While wildfires arenot rare in the western parts of the US, the climate crisis has exacerbated the issue, especially in California.
California saw 7,490 wildfires in 2022, an increase from the previous year, according to data from the California government. One wildfire in northern California destroyed 100 homes and other buildings, reported NBC News.
The severity of wildfires has destroyed homes, caused injuries and deaths, and worsened air quality, exposing millions to smoke and ash.
California's climates have become warmer and drier due to the climate crisis, causing the state's wildfires to be more frequent and intense. A recent study found that between 1986 to 2021, almost 40% of forest area that burned in the western US and parts of Canada could be attributed to fossil fuels, the Washington Post reported.
Moreover, California has experienced record wildfires in the past six years. The state experienced eight of the largest fires in US history and three of the top five deadliest fires.
Tags
Who is online
648 visitors
I believe we'll see more of this from insurance companies as disasters get larger, more often, and more costly.
Florida is experiencing a shortage of insurance companies as many have left the state or gone into bankruptcy. The state has formed a last-resort homeowner insurance company, hurricane insurance is very difficult to obtain and if you can get it it is extremely expensive. In 2022 Homeowners insurance in Florida was the highest in the US.
What sort of climate change mitigation is Florida doing?
There are a number of ''plans'' being announced but it would seem at this time that monies from the State to cities to prepare for water invasion is the most prominent. In Miami some of the new shopping centers have floodgates to protect them but IMO, this is at best a stop-gap measure since heavy rain and high tide is already flooding streets in the area.
When the highest point in Florida is a bit over 300 feet it will give one a better idea of the problems being faced.
There are also been numerous building code improvements but once again that is somewhat of a stopgap measure.
Most protections say that by 2100 most of south Florida will be underwater or unlivable.
Hurricane Ian last year caused over $109 billion in damage to Florida. What was shown on the news was mostly the coastal area around Ft Meyers but the damage to inland Florida was substantial with massive flooding 50 to 75 miles inland and not a lot of that was reported.
Yeah, I've seen maps showing much of Florida under water by the end of the next generation. You would think they would treat the threat of climate change with a little more urgency.
you would think, but they keep building in the Miami area which is already in some danger.
Meh.. I've also seen maps showing the new West Coast after the big one hits and takes out California. The new West Coast starts east of El Paso, heads up to Omaha and then angles up to Billings. Too much emphasis is on pushing fear and demanding that we completely change our way of living in order to forgive the other countries that aren't doing anything about this.
Yikes! that's a pretty "big one" indeed. The tsunami alone will destroy most of the world. There's nothing we can do about that though. We can still (hopefully) do something about climate change but comparing it to an earthquake won't help.
Can you imagine what the existing customers premiums will look like next year? What a racket....
Our premiums have been going up for several years. I live in the hills next to a high risk fire area, although we have never had a fire in our immediate area, and our premiums went up astronomically the last 3-4 years. However, this year I checked in again with a company that would not take us before because of where we live, and this time they had no problem with it. Happily, they quoted us a very reasonable amount and we saved thousands of dollars in premiums while still getting excellent coverage no different than with the previous company.
Out of curiosity, was the previous company State Farm?
They made us get different policies. Flood is a different thing than wind and hail. It caused several fights after Katrina. After, the wind policies wanted to blame the destruction on flooding and the flood insurance wanted to blame the wind...
No, it was Chubb. Their premiums became outrageous. We're now with the Auto Club for our homeowners coverage, where we have already insured our cars for many years.
You can count on an insurance company to try to avoid responsibility.
Since we live on a hill we don't have to worry about flooding. Fire is a real danger around here, though. Even though we've never had a fire in our neighborhood, when the fires start we can get lots of smoke and sometimes ashes fall in the yard.
Jake, from State Farm, won't give you his personal plan anymore.
Florida and much of the Southeast is next, Jake from State Farm is gonna tell you to go fuck yourself... or pay absurd fees.
But hey, Climate change isn't real.
According to our governor, DeSantis climate change is a ''leftist thing''...
If it's a 'leftist thing' you would think he'd want to 'destroy' it. I think he's too busy building closets to house his gay population.
He does want to destroy it, his quotes are priceless and dumber than a rock.
The definition of delusional, thinking the government that can’t educate our children or solve the opioid crisis can somehow solve climate change.
We certainly won't solve anything if we don't try.
One could say that the US is already doing a lot. And can also say the US is doing a lot more than any other country.
Maybe you can answer a question. Why should the US imperil it's own energy grid and make living harder and more expensive for it's citizens if the rest of the world continues to expand fossil fuel emissions and expand their impact on the global climate?
How are we imperiling our own energy grid?
The three biggest CO2 polluters are China, the US, and India. Many countries are making strides in fighting CC and some are equal or superior to the US in reducing GHG.
Biden administration rules to basically force natural gas power plants to shut down as it won't be cost effective to meet the carbon capture costs being imposed, making it harder to drill for oil and gas, pushing electric cars on the population when the grid is already overstressed.. it's common sense.
As far as reducing GHG, there are countries that have a greater percentage reduction but you also need to look at the total tons being released to determine exactly who is doing better than others. Countries like China and India are opening a new coal fired electric plant almost every week. These are also countries that signed on to the Paris Accords yet are not doing what they pledged to do. In the news there are European countries that discovered that going to green energy didn't quite work out well and they are going back to coal fired electric plants.
But that still doesn't answer my question. Why should we imperil our own electric grid and push more costs on US citizens if the rest of the world continues to expand fossil fuel emissions?
Sorry to jump in here but I would have to say, even if the rest of the world wants to destroy their own natural environment, wouldn't or shouldn't we want to save our own.
Do you not think we have been? Outside of East Palestine, Ohio, how many new superfund sites have there been in the last decade? Oh wait, is East Palestine considered a superfund site?
I don't think we have been very good stewards of the land. Believe it or not I will give Texas credit for the way they regulate wildlife. Or at least their enforcement.
I think we have been conditioned to expand and consider it an American way of life yet we need to start doing the opposite.
Not every inch of land needs to be occupied.
The term is GLOBAL warming, there is no way to save our little slice without saving all the slices.
Global warming will be decided by South America and Africa.
Its pure arrogance or stupidity to think the American government can solve this, they can’t even fix the problems they create.
You have nothing to worry about if you don't believe in it anyway...
This is why it is difficult to have conversations here. Your comment is complete bullshit based on nothing but your imagination. Post anything I have written that says global warming isn’t real, if you can’t find it then fuck off.
I disagree, I think compared to other countries we've been more than very good. Which kinda brings it back to the original question asked @ 5.1.1.
Yet inevitably will.....
an asteroid, war with China, or a mistake on the India/Pakistan Border could do a population correction fairly swiftly, maybe even another lab fuck-up.
Are you kidding? Conservatives have spent the last decade saying it was bullshit.
That is what you wrote, not conservatives or any other bullshit you are defecting with YOU!
[deleted]
To your question I would almost have the same answer. These plants pollute the immediate area more so than other places.
Some may call it a hardship on the citizens, I call it having clean air.
You are in Texas right? I was curious about what you hear down there about Musk. I have heard some rumblings about him polluting the river.
Yes, it is common sense and there is a good article on Bloomberg (behind a pay wall) that does a good job of showing that the majority of gas plants are spared.
Currently, we are the largest producer of oil in the world and with the opening of the willow tract in Alaska and the opening of leases in the Gulf of Mexico will add to the production of the US.
Pushing electric cars is a forgone conclusion as almost all auto companies have put their emphasis on elec vs internal combustion.
I'm aware of how to review the information re GHG and % vs tonnage being released. The point is that many countries are making major steps forward.
Yes, they are and with China IX is making a lot of promises re GHG so we'll see what happens.
That is true and there are those that are doing what they pledged to do.
Yes, they are but with caveats as with Germany. It is not because green energy didn't work out but the war in Ukraine which has caused a huge disruption in the energy supplies and the US has increased the amount of LNG that we sell to Europe which is a plus for the US.
Germany says it will phase out coal by 2030 — part of an improved deal of climate measures that brings forward the previous deadline of 2038. But to achieve it whilst getting away from Russian gas, it says short-term production of coal will need to be extended in some mines that were previously marked for closure.
Our electric grid has been in need of a huge overhaul and perhaps with the push for EV, we will get our heads out of our asses and move forward improving the elec grid. I don't know where you live snuffy, but I lived in LA when pollution was staggering then many rules/laws were put into effect to help improve air quality, which it did. Have you ever been to China and experienced the air pollution they have to deal with? I have on numerous occasions and I really don't want to see the US regress to the level of pollution that China is at.
Every improvement in consumer safety, water safety, (we are still really lacking in the clean water aspect) air quality have all increased cost.
Don't mean to butt in, but has he?
If I would call the word. If you don't believe in it....
Yet according to snuffy link, the US is the leader in battling GHG. So it would seem that the government can solve the problem.
Yet, still doesn't answer his question...
The problem with not having a conversation or debate is exactly what you posted. Try harder to present a legit argument and stop the name-calling.
Actually, it does, if people want to stay stuck in the past or put up barriers to moving forward in a positive manner that is on them.
I don't see it..
I completely agree with this part though.
What does that even mean?
Sorry.
No need to apologize to me. I'm sorry you can't see that the question wasn't answered.
[deleted]
For the entire world? Sure….
So you're unable to present a legit argument and fuck off is the limit of your abilities. Thanks for the example.
God I hope so but so far the White House from what I read has only allocated $13B for the task when experts say the total time and cost would be up to $7T and 20 years to do the work.
I can remember coming thru Norton AFT back in the 70's, we ended up on the ground for about 7 hours due to a mechanical issue on the C-141. I remember at the time looking out the windows and being just barely able to see a hanger that was about 100 yards away. So yes, I knew about how bad it was in LA and I am very happy that it's been cleaned up. This country has done a lot for the environment and correcting our earlier wrongs. But I question the wisdom of the need to do it all at once and immediately. Forcing higher costs on the citizenry just so the leadership can stand there and boast about how well they have improved the environment. A lot of the ideas they have are good ideas, it's just that the technology and the current infrastructure is not ready for this.
I suppose that is an argument from many people and to some extent a legit one, but from what I've seen and experienced is that it seems to move ahead now or the other side is hold on, slow down and that becomes a crawl.
IMO, many times when the technology and infrastructure are not ready we will not get ready by sitting on our hands, pushing forward or pushing the envelope so to speak can in its own right become the mother of invention.
California may not be able to stop what has happened (in the recent years past) to the state with its wildfires, but this past rain season we did okay and got out of the drought. And in fall 2023 - plan is for an El Nino (rainy, wet, and wild) in Southern California and possibly all the way up North!
It is good to see water in the rivers.
Yay! We have some more water coming in a matter of months in the form of El Nino. (Get Ready to stay wet, Californians!)
BTW, we are not as hot, burning, and aglow in California nowadays as that article image brings to the imagination—thankfully.