8 ms·

Are there areas of California where insurers are not operating anymore because of wildfires? That's crazy

jandrewrogers 2y ago
Yes, there are parts of California that are uninsurable against wildfires. Technically they could be insurable but State regulators will not allow insurance companies to raise premiums sufficient to cover the actuarial risk. The necessary premiums are prohibitively expensive for homeowners, but anything less risks bankrupting the insurance companies and increases their reinsurance costs which also must be passed on to homeowners. This is mostly on the California government, since the high insurance premiums are a side effect of disastrous wildfire mitigation policy in California. More proactive and competent wildfire mitigation would reduce the risk and therefore make insurance premiums more reasonable.
- ashoeafoot 2y ago
  Would it make sense to allow this? The models as you said make it a non viable buisness and where that gap exists scams move in, which the routinely have to be bailed out by the public.
- mschuster91 2y ago
  > More proactive and competent wildfire mitigation would reduce the risk and therefore make insurance premiums more reasonable. Or... not building mansions next to forestry? In Germany we have pretty strict requirements on distances, so it's rare for damages to occur. Also, most of our power grid infrastructure is buried below ground, so videos like the ones circulating on Twitter from arcing lines setting bushes and trees alight can't really happen here either. Prevention is orders of magnitude cheaper in the long run.
  - NewJazz 2y ago
    Fwiw these aren't really forest fires, they are brush fires.
  - friend_Fernando 2y ago
    The largest power company in CA is in the process of burying its cables. The risk level is not just affected by proximity to forests. For offshore (Santa Ana) wind events, the riskiest areas are the SW bottom of hills and near canyons. That's where the current LA fires are. IMO, a better prevention measure would be to not build houses out of sticks. That's already the case for much of the housing in Europe. Alas, here in the US the colonial and cabin aesthetics still win out, even when fire-resistant options aren't more expensive. Coffey Park in Santa Rosa was destroyed in 2017, and most properties were rebuilt to lower fire-resistance standards.[1] The second little pig just doesn't wanna hear it. https://wildfiretoday.com/2019/11/19/after-the-tubbs-fire-homes-in-california-town-are-being-rebuilt-without-strong-building-codes/ https://wildfiretoday.com/2019/11/19/after-the-tubbs-fire-ho...
    - mschuster91 2y ago
      > IMO, a better prevention measure would be to not build houses out of sticks. That's already the case for much of the housing in Europe. The only thing that helps against is hurricanes and other storm events. Once the fire has blown up the windows and embers (or outright flames) enter the interior, it's game over generally. You might be able to re-use a concrete or brick structure after a large fire, but if the fire ran unchecked until it burned out everything, no chance - concrete will have lost rebar integrity and bricks will have soaked up toxic combustion products.
      - friend_Fernando 2y ago
        Here in CA, it's more about reducing the spreading speed than about the resistance level once the fire gets there. All the large structure fires in recent years spread at breakneck speeds during an offshore wind event. In these cases, all that firefighters can do early on is evacuate people.
    - infecto 2y ago
      This narrative about building houses out of sticks also rubs me the wrong way. It's an extremely naive take on why it happens. The reason most homes in America are wood framed is really down to economics. Europe does not have as vast of a forest stock for lumber as the US/Canada does. Over time we have specialized in building wood framed homes and because of lumber, its cheaper. These homes would have been destroyed regardless of building material. The bigger issue is most of these homes have probably not properly gone through fire mitigation steps. https://www.insurance.ca.gov/01-consumers/200-wrr/Safer-from-Wildfires.cfm https://www.insurance.ca.gov/01-consumers/200-wrr/Safer-from...
- culi 2y ago
  As someone pointed out above, California has the FAIR plan for over 50 years which has been pretty effective. This LA fire might be its biggest test. Basically there's no part of California that is not insurable against wildfire https://grist.org/extreme-weather/california-overhauled-its-insurance-system-then-los-angeles-caught-fire/ https://grist.org/extreme-weather/california-overhauled-its-...

Yes, there are parts of California that are uninsurable against wildfires. Technically they could be insurable but State regulators will not allow insurance companies to raise premiums sufficient to cover the actuarial risk. The necessary premiums are prohibitively expensive for homeowners, but anything less risks bankrupting the insurance companies and increases their reinsurance costs which also must be passed on to homeowners. This is mostly on the California government, since the high insurance premiums are a side effect of disastrous wildfire mitigation policy in California. More proactive and competent wildfire mitigation would reduce the risk and therefore make insurance premiums more reasonable.

ashoeafoot 2y ago
Would it make sense to allow this? The models as you said make it a non viable buisness and where that gap exists scams move in, which the routinely have to be bailed out by the public.
mschuster91 2y ago
> More proactive and competent wildfire mitigation would reduce the risk and therefore make insurance premiums more reasonable. Or... not building mansions next to forestry? In Germany we have pretty strict requirements on distances, so it's rare for damages to occur. Also, most of our power grid infrastructure is buried below ground, so videos like the ones circulating on Twitter from arcing lines setting bushes and trees alight can't really happen here either. Prevention is orders of magnitude cheaper in the long run.
- NewJazz 2y ago
  Fwiw these aren't really forest fires, they are brush fires.
- friend_Fernando 2y ago
  The largest power company in CA is in the process of burying its cables. The risk level is not just affected by proximity to forests. For offshore (Santa Ana) wind events, the riskiest areas are the SW bottom of hills and near canyons. That's where the current LA fires are. IMO, a better prevention measure would be to not build houses out of sticks. That's already the case for much of the housing in Europe. Alas, here in the US the colonial and cabin aesthetics still win out, even when fire-resistant options aren't more expensive. Coffey Park in Santa Rosa was destroyed in 2017, and most properties were rebuilt to lower fire-resistance standards.[1] The second little pig just doesn't wanna hear it. https://wildfiretoday.com/2019/11/19/after-the-tubbs-fire-homes-in-california-town-are-being-rebuilt-without-strong-building-codes/ https://wildfiretoday.com/2019/11/19/after-the-tubbs-fire-ho...
  - mschuster91 2y ago
    > IMO, a better prevention measure would be to not build houses out of sticks. That's already the case for much of the housing in Europe. The only thing that helps against is hurricanes and other storm events. Once the fire has blown up the windows and embers (or outright flames) enter the interior, it's game over generally. You might be able to re-use a concrete or brick structure after a large fire, but if the fire ran unchecked until it burned out everything, no chance - concrete will have lost rebar integrity and bricks will have soaked up toxic combustion products.
    - friend_Fernando 2y ago
      Here in CA, it's more about reducing the spreading speed than about the resistance level once the fire gets there. All the large structure fires in recent years spread at breakneck speeds during an offshore wind event. In these cases, all that firefighters can do early on is evacuate people.
  - infecto 2y ago
    This narrative about building houses out of sticks also rubs me the wrong way. It's an extremely naive take on why it happens. The reason most homes in America are wood framed is really down to economics. Europe does not have as vast of a forest stock for lumber as the US/Canada does. Over time we have specialized in building wood framed homes and because of lumber, its cheaper. These homes would have been destroyed regardless of building material. The bigger issue is most of these homes have probably not properly gone through fire mitigation steps. https://www.insurance.ca.gov/01-consumers/200-wrr/Safer-from-Wildfires.cfm https://www.insurance.ca.gov/01-consumers/200-wrr/Safer-from...
culi 2y ago
As someone pointed out above, California has the FAIR plan for over 50 years which has been pretty effective. This LA fire might be its biggest test. Basically there's no part of California that is not insurable against wildfire https://grist.org/extreme-weather/california-overhauled-its-insurance-system-then-los-angeles-caught-fire/ https://grist.org/extreme-weather/california-overhauled-its-...