by milleramp on 2/4/25, 9:15 PM with 27 comments
by bradchris on 2/4/25, 9:34 PM
In its “best” form, it’s requiring those who have bought homes in safer areas statewide to subsidize those in more dangerous areas, which is already absurd, considering those more dangerous areas are already predominately wealthy coastal and hillside areas that can and should pay their own full cost of insurance.
My annual payment with a different insurer nearly doubled after our insurer had to drop the entire zip code purely because half of my zip code is in a high fire hazard zone, even though my property and half of zip code is rated one of the lowest fire hazard zones in the state.
At its most extreme, because of the provisions limiting risk adjustment based on and within zip codes (originally, for redlining, which I understand, but for fire risk it makes no sense considering different locations are inherently riskier), it will and has caused insurance companies to exit the state entirely, and then we’re all screwed.
I do wonder if SCOTUS will revisit this and declare the original ballot measure limiting risk an unconstitutional “taking” from those in safer locations (or insurers themselves), given my understanding is Florida has the same issues too…
by TinkersW on 2/5/25, 3:51 AM
by bell-cot on 2/4/25, 9:19 PM