Insurance companies are scummy but the headline phrasing makes it seem like they JUST canceled the policies…but no, it was 6 months ago.
As much as I want to hate them for it, can you really blame them? Insurance operates under the measured assumption that most people won’t have to use it for some major. When wildfires become probable, it’s almost guaranteed to cost them exponentially more than homeowners paid in premiums.
Even if insurance cost $50,000/year, it would take several years of payments to cover the payout. And California has wildfires yearly.
I mean it would be great to have some kind of socialised home insurance that wasn’t “for profit”, but such a scheme should still refuse to insure homes which are likely to burn down.
That probably sounds good in your head. But you are only thinking of fires. What if they just pick the highest risk factor for every house and refuse to cover that. Then what would be the point of the insurance. And if you consider all the houses that are a high risk for something… fire, hurricane, flooding, high winds, tornadoes, earthquakes… you aren’t left with many houses.
Let me rephrase. If they refused to insure any house that was a high risk for one factor. That would be a very sizable chunk of the country. Even if they only refused to insure it for the thing it was high risk for, it would make unsurance on the house pointless. Flood zones and wildfire zones particularly are expending every year. Hurricane zones used to be ok to insure because hurricanes didn’t hit too hard too often. But they are stronger and more frequent, so much of Florida has a very short list of insurers which will trend to zero in the near future. While I agree everyone should move out of florida because of the shitty politics, that isn’t really practical.
Thats why i pointed at building codes. Require building that will survive the threat. Then people will have to pay more for them which discourages people from building in those areas at least.
Insurances need to cover their expected cost with the rates, otherwise they won’t be able to cover in case of an incident. Nobody will run an insurance expecting a loss, and you can’t force anyone to.
The alternative is like when we had flood that the state bails out the boomers who bought houses when they were cheap in areas where insurance won’t insure because of risk, paid with taxes by people like me who have a hard time acquiring property because taxes and other cost are so high due to decisions their generation and earlier ones made.
Of course, this is somewhat exaggerated; they also pay taxes. But it’s also not completely wrong.
In the particular case of a previous colleague’s house getting flooded, I always had to think of the fact that she chose to fly a certain route for work to save about 2 hours because it’s just so much more convenient than the train.
I mean it would have happened with it without her flying, but still thought about it.
Insurance companies are scummy but the headline phrasing makes it seem like they JUST canceled the policies…but no, it was 6 months ago.
As much as I want to hate them for it, can you really blame them? Insurance operates under the measured assumption that most people won’t have to use it for some major. When wildfires become probable, it’s almost guaranteed to cost them exponentially more than homeowners paid in premiums.
Even if insurance cost $50,000/year, it would take several years of payments to cover the payout. And California has wildfires yearly.
Especially for the palisades $3,500,000 homes.
At $50,000 a year it would take 70 years of payments.
This is why insurance shouldn’t be for profit.
I think you might have missed the point.
I mean it would be great to have some kind of socialised home insurance that wasn’t “for profit”, but such a scheme should still refuse to insure homes which are likely to burn down.
That probably sounds good in your head. But you are only thinking of fires. What if they just pick the highest risk factor for every house and refuse to cover that. Then what would be the point of the insurance. And if you consider all the houses that are a high risk for something… fire, hurricane, flooding, high winds, tornadoes, earthquakes… you aren’t left with many houses.
What a silly thing to say.
Obviously, if one insurer refused to cover what ever thing, they would lose all their customers to other insurers who covered sensible risks.
The point is, you can’t insure against risks that are too likely to occur.
Let me rephrase. If they refused to insure any house that was a high risk for one factor. That would be a very sizable chunk of the country. Even if they only refused to insure it for the thing it was high risk for, it would make unsurance on the house pointless. Flood zones and wildfire zones particularly are expending every year. Hurricane zones used to be ok to insure because hurricanes didn’t hit too hard too often. But they are stronger and more frequent, so much of Florida has a very short list of insurers which will trend to zero in the near future. While I agree everyone should move out of florida because of the shitty politics, that isn’t really practical.
The cost of insurance needs to equal the risk though.
If a house is going to get burned down every year, who pays to re-build it?
It isn’t practical to expect everyone to move out of florida, but climate change is impractical.
Thats why i pointed at building codes. Require building that will survive the threat. Then people will have to pay more for them which discourages people from building in those areas at least.
Maybe. That doesn’t really help all of the existing buildings though.
Insurances need to cover their expected cost with the rates, otherwise they won’t be able to cover in case of an incident. Nobody will run an insurance expecting a loss, and you can’t force anyone to.
The alternative is like when we had flood that the state bails out the boomers who bought houses when they were cheap in areas where insurance won’t insure because of risk, paid with taxes by people like me who have a hard time acquiring property because taxes and other cost are so high due to decisions their generation and earlier ones made.
Of course, this is somewhat exaggerated; they also pay taxes. But it’s also not completely wrong.
In the particular case of a previous colleague’s house getting flooded, I always had to think of the fact that she chose to fly a certain route for work to save about 2 hours because it’s just so much more convenient than the train.
I mean it would have happened with it without her flying, but still thought about it.