L.A. Fires

martin said:
Going forward though is it feasible to insure against climate change level losses? I doubt it. Either the cost will become prohibitive or insurers will give up that part of the business. Then the domino effect on mortgage loans.
Click to expand...
From what I've read, yes. But there clearly will be (large) price increases (otherwise insurers will pull out). And to your point, and this already started before the fires, mortgages were becoming contingent upon getting insurance (a lot has been written about this locally in the past couple of months actually).

Everything is so fluid right now it's hard to say with certainty what will happen but I've not read anything (at least yet) saying they foresee a future with no insurers in the state.
 
martin said:
Going forward though is it feasible to insure against climate change level losses?
Click to expand...
Climate cannot change.
martin said:
I doubt it. Either the cost will become prohibitive or insurers will give up that part of the business.
Click to expand...
Fire insurers already left the SDTC long ago. Turns out fascism and price controls doesn't work.
martin said:
Then the domino effect on mortgage loans.
Click to expand...
A real problem. It will be interesting to see how that factor plays out.
 
Into the Night said:
Fire insurers already left the SDTC long ago.
Click to expand...


Did they?

Several insurers are still covering homes in Los Angeles County despite the challenges posed by recent wildfires.

The California Insurance Commissioner, Ricardo Lara, has issued a mandatory one-year moratorium on insurance non-renewals and cancellations for residents in the areas affected by the recent fires, including those within the perimeters or adjacent ZIP Codes of the Palisades and Eaton fires.

This directive ensures that current policyholders in these fire zones cannot have their policies canceled or not renewed regardless of whether they suffered a loss.

Additionally, while many insurers have been cautious about writing new policies in high-risk wildfire areas, some companies such as Mercury, AAA, MAPFRE, and Grange Insurance Association are still offering coverage in Los Angeles County, although premiums might be higher or policies might come with certain conditions due to the increased risk.

While the insurance market in Los Angeles County is under strain, insurance coverage is still available.


@Grok
 
cawacko said:
From what I've read, yes. But there clearly will be (large) price increases (otherwise insurers will pull out). And to your point, and this already started before the fires, mortgages were becoming contingent upon getting insurance (a lot has been written about this locally in the past couple of months actually).

Everything is so fluid right now it's hard to say with certainty what will happen but I've not read anything (at least yet) saying they foresee a future with no insurers in the state.
Click to expand...
Fire insurers already pulled out. Turns out that fascism and price controls don't work.
The SDTC signed onto those mortgage statements. However they will welch. The SDTC is already broke.
 
Diogenes said:
Did they?

Several insurers are still covering homes in Los Angeles County despite the challenges posed by recent wildfires.

The California Insurance Commissioner, Ricardo Lara, has issued a mandatory one-year moratorium on insurance non-renewals and cancellations for residents in the areas affected by the recent fires, including those within the perimeters or adjacent ZIP Codes of the Palisades and Eaton fires.

This directive ensures that current policyholders in these fire zones cannot have their policies canceled or not renewed regardless of whether they suffered a loss.

Additionally, while many insurers have been cautious about writing new policies in high-risk wildfire areas, some companies such as Mercury, AAA, MAPFRE, and Grange Insurance Association are still offering coverage in Los Angeles County, although premiums might be higher or policies might come with certain conditions due to the increased risk.

While the insurance market in Los Angeles County is under strain, insurance coverage is still available.


@Grok
Click to expand...
They pulled out. Turns out fascism and price controls don't work.
 
Jarod said:
As you suggesting its not all caused by DEI and the Smelt?
Click to expand...
Your question isn't relevant to my specific post you responded to, but I'll answer.

Lots of things contributed to the events occurring now including Mother Nature of course as well as policies put in place in the state and the actions of individuals.

I understand the DEI argument to this extent. When you listen to the fire chief and the talk when she was hired it focused far more on identity than ability. Like most things there is nuance. It's not wrong to reference and acknowledge identity but when it becomes the central focus, as opposed to this is the best person to lead the department, it's not shocking that there is pushback when things don't go well.

For as long as I've lived here I admit I've never fully understood (or tried to) the whole water issue (outside of a very high level). Anyone who has driven I-5 through the Central Valley has seen the signs from farmers screaming at our politicians about water policies (smelt). It's been going on a long time. So yes, smelt and the state's response does have a role in the overall picture. But none of these issues alone are the sole issue.
 
I feel bad for what has happened in LA. Kind of. All I know is everyone else's home insurance around the country is going to up because of them.
 
cawacko said:
No doubt.
Click to expand...
I consider you to be one of the more nonbiased individuals on this forum and I respect you for that. I have been watching a large number of interviews with your Governor who comes off to me as a greasy sleazeball who diverts, deflects, and flat-out lies just to suit his agenda. I thought Tampon Tim Walz with his absolute pissing away of a $18.5 billion dollar surplus and still raising taxes, or his allowing $550 million to be stolen from the taxpayers by three different groups of Somalli's, was the worst Governor in history, but after watching a couple of hours of pure bullshit pouring out of Newsome's mouth, Walz comes off as a Rhodes Scholar. Change my mind.
BTW, there is no chance you can do that as I have watched Newscum destroy your once great state year after year with his off the wall policies and failure to perform when called upon to step up to the plate and people keep voting for the same crap election after election.
 
cawacko said:
Your question isn't relevant to my specific post you responded to, but I'll answer.

Lots of things contributed to the events occurring now including Mother Nature of course as well as policies put in place in the state and the actions of individuals.

I understand the DEI argument to this extent. When you listen to the fire chief and the talk when she was hired it focused far more on identity than ability. Like most things there is nuance. It's not wrong to reference and acknowledge identity but when it becomes the central focus, as opposed to this is the best person to lead the department, it's not shocking that there is pushback when things don't go well.

For as long as I've lived here I admit I've never fully understood (or tried to) the whole water issue (outside of a very high level). Anyone who has driven I-5 through the Central Valley has seen the signs from farmers screaming at our politicians about water policies (smelt). It's been going on a long time. So yes, smelt and the state's response does have a role in the overall picture. But none of these issues alone are the sole issue.
Click to expand...
Do you have some evidence that the fire chief was not the best candidate for the job?
 
cawacko said:
From what I've read, yes. But there clearly will be (large) price increases (otherwise insurers will pull out). And to your point, and this already started before the fires, mortgages were becoming contingent upon getting insurance (a lot has been written about this locally in the past couple of months actually).

Everything is so fluid right now it's hard to say with certainty what will happen but I've not read anything (at least yet) saying they foresee a future with no insurers in the state.
Click to expand...
Home mortgages were always contingent upon providing insurance.
 
martin said:
Home mortgages were always contingent upon providing insurance.
Click to expand...


No, home mortgages are not always contingent upon providing insurance, but there are some common practices that might make it seem that way:

  • Mortgage Insurance: In many cases, lenders require mortgage insurance if the down payment is less than 20% of the home's value. This protects the lender in case of default, not the property itself.
  • Homeowners Insurance: While not legally required by mortgage terms in every jurisdiction, the vast majority of lenders will require homeowners insurance as a condition of the loan. This insurance covers the property against damage from events like fire, storms, or theft, protecting the lender's investment in the property.
  • Exceptions:
    • Cash Purchases: If you're buying a home outright with cash, no mortgage means no mortgage-related insurance requirements.
    • Certain Loan Types: Some specialized loan programs might have different insurance requirements or none at all, though these are less common.
    • Government Programs: Some government-backed loans might have different or waived insurance requirements under specific circumstances.
  • Flood or Earthquake Insurance: In areas prone to specific natural disasters, additional insurance like flood or earthquake insurance might be required by the lender, or at least strongly recommended.
  • Legal Variations: Requirements can vary by county, state, or even municipality. In some places, lenders might not legally require insurance, but they might still make it a condition of the loan for their protection.
@Grok
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top