CNN WIRE

By Chris Isidore, CNN

Editor’s Note: As of Thursday morning New York Time, there were six major fires burning in Los Angeles County and the death toll stood at five. More than 2,000 buildings were destroyed. An estimated 1.5 million customers were without power. Up to 100,000 people had been evacuated from their homes. President Biden declared a emergency, setting the stage for federal aid to fire victims.

New York (CNN) — Lynne Levin-Guzman stood in the front yard of her 90-year-old parents’ home in Los Angeles County, California, trying to protect it with a garden hose — because their insurance company no longer would.

“I know I’m not supposed to be here, but this is my parents’ home and they just lost — they got canceled from their fire insurance. So they’re dealing with this,” she told CNN affiliate KABC. “They’ve lived in this house for 75 years and they’ve had the same insurance and these insurance people decided to cancel their fire insurance.”

“And they wonder why people leave California,” she added.

Levin-Guzman and her parents’ experience is increasingly common. Between 2020 and 2022, insurance companies declined to renew 2.8 million homeowner policies in the state, according to the most recent data from the California Department of Insurance. That includes 531,000 in Los Angeles County, where fires are currently raging.

Some of those policies were not renewed by homeowners, according to an insurance industry trade group. But most of those policies were canceled by the insurers.

The issue has continued to build over the past several years, State Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara and consumer groups say. Insurers in California have been refusing to write new policies in areas they consider to be at high risk for wildfires, which is a large percentage of the state.

The rising threat of wildfires, and insurance companies pulling back on offering coverage in the large swaths of California at risk for these devastating disasters, has become a crisis for homeowners throughout the state. And while the state has recently taken steps to address the issue, those new rules are sparking their own criticism because of the increased costs to homeowners that could accompany them.

The problem of canceled policies has forced some homeowners to go without fire insurance or to use a program set up by the state — but without taxpayer support — called the California FAIR plan. Those policies have higher premiums than traditional private insurance and less coverage, often requiring homeowners to buy additional “wrap around” coverage at an even higher cost.

Although FAIR is supposed to be a last-resort insurance provider, demand for its policies has skyrocketed. Its exposure for dwellings as of September was up 61% to $458 billion from just a year earlier, and triple where it stood only four years ago. Its exposure for commercial policies has risen even faster, nearly doubling to $26.6 billion as of September, and up 464% in the last four years.

California FAIR tried to assure worried homeowners that it would be able to handle the claims that this week’s massive fires will produce.

“The FAIR Plan, which is primarily a catastrophe insurer, is prepared for this and is actively serving customers who have made claims,” it said in a statement Wednesday. “The FAIR Plan has payment mechanisms in place, including reinsurance, to ensure all covered claims are paid.”

No matter the financial condition of FAIR after these fires, homeowners will almost certainly foot the bill in the form of higher premiums. One way or another, it will probably become even more expensive to live in California.

New insurance regulations just announced

To give California homeowners in high-risk areas an alternative to California FAIR, the California Department of Insurance just announced new regulations two weeks ago designed to get private insurers to start writing policies in fire-prone parts of the state. The policy is designed to get private insurers to take back much of the coverage now handled by California FAIR.

The rules will require that insurers need to write policies in fire-prone areas equal to at least 85% of their market share throughout the state.

But the policy also gives insurers one thing they’ve been seeking for years: the ability to factor in the cost of reinsurance policies, which are policies they buy from other firms to spread their risk, as part of their rate calculations. California has been the only state that didn’t allow the cost of reinsurance to be part of the rate calculations. Reinsurance has been rising due to both the risks posed by climate change and the increasing cost of claims due to inflation raising the price of labor, lumber and other raw materials.

So the rates that private insurers charge is very likely to increase as a result of this new policy.

“We are being realistic about the risks in California,” Lara told CNN Wednesday. “We can never get to affordability unless we address the availability.”

But Lara’s new policy has been harshly criticized by Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit, nonpartisan Consumer Advocacy Group that focuses on the insurance market in California. It estimates that insurance rates could rise 40% to 50% as a result of the change, an estimate that Lara disputes. It points to rate hikes of 25% or more approved by the state for many of the major national insurers, such as State Farm, Farmers and Allstate in just the last 13 months.

And the group says there are too many problems with the new rule that will allow insurers to still avoid residents in fire-prone areas who need the insurance the most.

“This new policy is guaranteeing higher rates but not necessarily access to coverage,” said Carmen Balber, executive director of Consumer Watchdog. “The commissioner has granted the insurance industry what it wants. There are so many loopholes and lack of teeth in the rule that homeowners won’t see expanded coverage for a very long time, if at all.”

Rising costs

The Insurance Information Institute, an insurance industry trade group, says it supports the new rules, arguing it is the best solution for allowing its members to insure the fire-prone part of the market that needs fire insurance the most. While the industry’s own stats show that it has been profitable in California in recent years, it said massive losses in 2017 and 2018 caused by the wildfires more than wiped out a decade worth of profit. And it says their costs continue to rise, requiring the increase in insurance premiums.

“We have seen the cost of reinsurance has been going up due to climate risk and also inflation,” said Janet Ruiz, spokesperson for III. California is the only state that hasn’t allowed the cost of reinsurance to be factored in to rates, she said.

Lara said as some of the homeowners who have been forced onto FAIR plan are able to find private insurance once again, their premiums could fall, even if those insurers’ rates are higher than they used to be because the cost of reinsurance is now calculated into their rate.

“This will set premiums fairly for consumers,” he said. “The cost for insurance has skyrocketed. Inflation is even more of a factor than climate change. You have to take in mind.”

But Consumer Watchdog said that the industry has been profitable in California, even without these rules and should be required to write policies for those who have lost coverage without the change in rate calculations.

Despite what insurers claim, she said, “the insurance industry is not on the verge of catastrophe in California.”