4 ms·

I live in northern California. some of this may partially be due to red tape, bureaucracy and the current number 3 ranking as a 'judicial hellhole' https://www

I live in northern California. some of this may partially be due to red tape, bureaucracy and the current number 3 ranking as a 'judicial hellhole' https://www.judicialhellholes.org/hellhole/2022-2023/california/ https://www.judicialhellholes.org/hellhole/2022-2023/califor...

nimih 3y ago
In terms of the insurance industry at least, California isn’t too far out of the ordinary compared in terms of bureaucracy and red tape (especially compared to, say, some eastern states with powerful and aggressive regulators such as NY or MA). Of course, the judicial environment is separate from the regulatory apparatus, and it seems eminently plausible that CA courts are much more willing to protect consumers from bad faith claims practices, etc. That all being said, catastrophic[1] wilfdire claims are a huge problem in the P&C insurance industry because they make the actuarial math much more difficult, and CA has had quite a few over the past couple years. Where I live in CO, none of the well-known insurers will, as a rule, write home policies in the mountain regions for similar reasons in spite of the relatively friendly regulatory environment. [1] a term with a rather precise meaning in insurance, referring to a single event which causes a large number of expensive and highly correlated claims
- inferiorhuman 3y ago
  Yep. The cost for our master policy jumped 4x in 2018. This was right after PG&E burned huge chunks of California (including entire cities) to the ground. That's not a bureaucracy issue that's an "oh shit everything's a lot more likely to burn down than we realized" issue.
  - coryrc 3y ago
    The forests are supposed to burn. They burnt for centuries before 1900. The reaction when houses burn should be "should have built using fireproof materials" or "that happens when you live in a forest" not "here's billions of dollars from more-responsible people".
    - jvanderbot 3y ago
      Insurance is socialization of risk. It's much more cost efficient to socialize costs for infrequent bad events than it is to require anyone who might suffer said event to make themselves immune to it. The cost for making fireproof all homes that may burn is astronomical, as would be ensuring all homes could survive flood, tornado, hurricane, etc etc. The adjustment in cost is simply facing the reality that more homes are burning nowadays. They pay for your flood insurance as much as you pay for their fire insurance, and their premiums are moving up faster than yours.. Today them, tomorrow you
      - mixmastamyk 3y ago
        Bricks are quite cheap, why they are used to build homes in developing countries. Metal roofs are available as well at a range of prices.
        jvanderbot 3y ago
        These 3 little pig arguments fall a bit flat to me. You may have not seen what a forest fire, like those NorCal gets, does to a house. The insurance companies will have to pay just as much to replace a yard with some scorched brick in it where a family of four used to live, with their cars, possessions, appliances, etc. The house is ruined whether the walls survived the 1000 degree heat or not, because everything in and around it is lost. Now there's certainly a class of old wooden houses on grasslands that are vulnerable to becoming infernos from stray sparks. Assuming they weren't always that vulnerable (and that's what we're talking about here: new risk), I'm just not clear who would pay for it to be torn down and rebuild with (magical?) bricks. Did the homeowners have to do periodic risk assessments and decide when to do this? Who would pay for it? What's their motivation? They have insurance after all. They'll just rebuild. If the insurance companies were caught off guard by this, how is a home owner to know and preemptively rebuild?
        mixmastamyk 3y ago
        Areas around the house must be cleared as well. These are mitigations to reduce costs not cures.
milsorgen 3y ago
That is really quite fascinating. Prop 65 in particular, I was vaguely aware it was a headache for businesses in particular but I wasn't aware it created such incentives for citizens and lawyers to act. I can't help but wonder if simply requiring a list of ingredients for all products would be a better way to achieve similair ends.
inferiorhuman 3y ago
Literally the top of the article you'll see wildfires and rapidly growing construction costs as the major factors. In the Bay Area, my HOA's insurance carrier doesn't have any general contractors willing to participate in their repair program. Try finding a licensed contractor on your own, most won't get out of bed for anything under six figures even if you're okay with unpermitted work. Labor is scarce, demand is high (wildfires), and materials are expensive. I know a few folks in the trades out here and one is constantly at his lake house, the other is constantly on vacation or touring with his band.
- KennyBlanken 3y ago
  Shhhh, you're going against the HN groupthink - regulation bad, free enterprise good, homeless / druggies running amock thanks to libruh blah blah blah!
  - cscurmudgeon 3y ago
    Do you think regulation has no impact on those factors? Worst wildfires in the Bay Area were a few years ago.
    - pxmpxm 3y ago
      Strict liability for the power company -> rolling blackouts. Price caps for insurance policies -> no insurance policies. Multi year environmental study requirements -> no new construction. Decriminalization of theft -> rampant theft. Eviction moratorium -> rent inflation and 800+ credit score requirements. There's enough of this make a small encyclopedia.
tzs 3y ago
That site's definition of "judicial hellhole" seems to be approximately "place they think is too easy for plaintiffs in personal injury or consumer protection lawsuits". For example, a big part of why they ranked Pennsylvania as a top judicial hellhole is that the venue rules for medical malpractice lawsuits was changed from "must file in the county where the alleged injury occurred" to "can file where the alleged injury occurred, where the doctor lives, or where the provider operates a hospital or office". Some reasons Georgia is #1 are a big verdict against Ford in a suit saying F-250s have weak roofs that greatly increase the danger in a roll over accidents and a state Supreme Court ruling allowing a lawsuit to proceed against Snapchat from an accident where someone going 107 mph (they were trying to generate a post using Snapchat's Speed Filter that would show over 100 mph).

nimih 3y ago

In terms of the insurance industry at least, California isn’t too far out of the ordinary compared in terms of bureaucracy and red tape (especially compared to, say, some eastern states with powerful and aggressive regulators such as NY or MA). Of course, the judicial environment is separate from the regulatory apparatus, and it seems eminently plausible that CA courts are much more willing to protect consumers from bad faith claims practices, etc. That all being said, catastrophic[1] wilfdire claims are a huge problem in the P&C insurance industry because they make the actuarial math much more difficult, and CA has had quite a few over the past couple years. Where I live in CO, none of the well-known insurers will, as a rule, write home policies in the mountain regions for similar reasons in spite of the relatively friendly regulatory environment. [1] a term with a rather precise meaning in insurance, referring to a single event which causes a large number of expensive and highly correlated claims

inferiorhuman 3y ago
Yep. The cost for our master policy jumped 4x in 2018. This was right after PG&E burned huge chunks of California (including entire cities) to the ground. That's not a bureaucracy issue that's an "oh shit everything's a lot more likely to burn down than we realized" issue.
- coryrc 3y ago
  The forests are supposed to burn. They burnt for centuries before 1900. The reaction when houses burn should be "should have built using fireproof materials" or "that happens when you live in a forest" not "here's billions of dollars from more-responsible people".
  - jvanderbot 3y ago
    Insurance is socialization of risk. It's much more cost efficient to socialize costs for infrequent bad events than it is to require anyone who might suffer said event to make themselves immune to it. The cost for making fireproof all homes that may burn is astronomical, as would be ensuring all homes could survive flood, tornado, hurricane, etc etc. The adjustment in cost is simply facing the reality that more homes are burning nowadays. They pay for your flood insurance as much as you pay for their fire insurance, and their premiums are moving up faster than yours.. Today them, tomorrow you
    - mixmastamyk 3y ago
      Bricks are quite cheap, why they are used to build homes in developing countries. Metal roofs are available as well at a range of prices.
      - jvanderbot 3y ago
        These 3 little pig arguments fall a bit flat to me. You may have not seen what a forest fire, like those NorCal gets, does to a house. The insurance companies will have to pay just as much to replace a yard with some scorched brick in it where a family of four used to live, with their cars, possessions, appliances, etc. The house is ruined whether the walls survived the 1000 degree heat or not, because everything in and around it is lost. Now there's certainly a class of old wooden houses on grasslands that are vulnerable to becoming infernos from stray sparks. Assuming they weren't always that vulnerable (and that's what we're talking about here: new risk), I'm just not clear who would pay for it to be torn down and rebuild with (magical?) bricks. Did the homeowners have to do periodic risk assessments and decide when to do this? Who would pay for it? What's their motivation? They have insurance after all. They'll just rebuild. If the insurance companies were caught off guard by this, how is a home owner to know and preemptively rebuild?
        mixmastamyk 3y ago
        Areas around the house must be cleared as well. These are mitigations to reduce costs not cures.

milsorgen 3y ago

That is really quite fascinating. Prop 65 in particular, I was vaguely aware it was a headache for businesses in particular but I wasn't aware it created such incentives for citizens and lawyers to act. I can't help but wonder if simply requiring a list of ingredients for all products would be a better way to achieve similair ends.

inferiorhuman 3y ago

Literally the top of the article you'll see wildfires and rapidly growing construction costs as the major factors. In the Bay Area, my HOA's insurance carrier doesn't have any general contractors willing to participate in their repair program. Try finding a licensed contractor on your own, most won't get out of bed for anything under six figures even if you're okay with unpermitted work. Labor is scarce, demand is high (wildfires), and materials are expensive. I know a few folks in the trades out here and one is constantly at his lake house, the other is constantly on vacation or touring with his band.

KennyBlanken 3y ago
Shhhh, you're going against the HN groupthink - regulation bad, free enterprise good, homeless / druggies running amock thanks to libruh blah blah blah!
- cscurmudgeon 3y ago
  Do you think regulation has no impact on those factors? Worst wildfires in the Bay Area were a few years ago.
  - pxmpxm 3y ago
    Strict liability for the power company -> rolling blackouts. Price caps for insurance policies -> no insurance policies. Multi year environmental study requirements -> no new construction. Decriminalization of theft -> rampant theft. Eviction moratorium -> rent inflation and 800+ credit score requirements. There's enough of this make a small encyclopedia.

tzs 3y ago

That site's definition of "judicial hellhole" seems to be approximately "place they think is too easy for plaintiffs in personal injury or consumer protection lawsuits". For example, a big part of why they ranked Pennsylvania as a top judicial hellhole is that the venue rules for medical malpractice lawsuits was changed from "must file in the county where the alleged injury occurred" to "can file where the alleged injury occurred, where the doctor lives, or where the provider operates a hospital or office". Some reasons Georgia is #1 are a big verdict against Ford in a suit saying F-250s have weak roofs that greatly increase the danger in a roll over accidents and a state Supreme Court ruling allowing a lawsuit to proceed against Snapchat from an accident where someone going 107 mph (they were trying to generate a post using Snapchat's Speed Filter that would show over 100 mph).