this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2024
210 points (99.5% liked)

News

23014 readers
1 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

State Farm will discontinue coverage for 72,000 houses and apartments in California starting this summer, the insurance giant said this week, nine months after announcing it would not issue new home policies in the state 

The Illinois-based company, California’s largest insurer, cited soaring costs, the increasing risk of catastrophes like wildfires and outdated regulations as reasons it won’t renew the policies on 30,000 houses and 42,000 apartments, the Bay Area News Group reported Thursday.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 53 points 8 months ago (2 children)

And like a bad neighbor, State Farm won't care.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

No insurance companies care. They are all in business to make money. I can’t blame them for not wanting to insure a disaster-prone area.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

Hahaha I heard the jingle as I read it! Perfection!

[–] [email protected] 50 points 8 months ago (1 children)

All insurance types should be nationalized.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I agree, however I also agree that you should not expect to be able to build in an area that is prone to disaster. Like if I build my house on a Sandy Beach and the foundation fails because it's on Sand I'm not going to expect that the insurance company is going to cover it. The same should be considered for areas that are prone to natural disasters like California or Florida with Hurricanes

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I agree but I also think people who've lived there prior to this designation should be grandfathered in or compensated for uprooting and moving.

There are millions of people in the country who through little fault of their own could be totally screwed by this.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I believe that if an insurance company /chooses/ to take on a insurance contract with a homeowner, they should be able to go through with it. So i fully agree with the grandfathered in thing, but like I also feel that a company shouldn't be forced to keep a customer outside that contract expiring. If they are canceling the contract mid cycle I am 100% expecting compensation, but if its just a policy renewal? there's other companies or if not that was a risk being built in a higher risk zone

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago

If they are canceling the contract mid cycle I am 100% expecting compensation, but if its just a policy renewal? there's other companies or if not that was a risk being built in a higher risk zone

These houses weren't built when these zones were high risk and more companies are moving out, leaving people with nothing.

Frankly, I feel no pity in forcing companies that have bent people over and fucked them to insure these places. Maybe that'll teach them a lesson in not helping fight climate change as risk management

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Are US loans not given with the prerequisite that the property is insured? Wouldn’t pulling out unilaterally fuck everyone with a loan?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

if it was allowed to withdraw prior to the loan being paid off yes, if they can't secure another insurance anyway, but in my opinion that isn't the insurance companies problem, they only provide their service, they are not involved with the financial issues of the broker/lender. It would fall on the consumer choosing to live in a potentially dangerous area to insure. That being said at least in this situation, the state has acknowledged that it's an issue for homeleasers, and has given an alternative, but people dislike the cost of the insurance.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The oil industry will keep making money and we're going to pick up the check in the form of insurance, taxes, and misery.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 8 months ago

It’s true, these are externalized costs.

Socialize the costs, privatize the profits

[–] [email protected] 33 points 8 months ago (4 children)

What climate catastrophe-free area of the country does State Farm think it will make sense to still insure homes in?

Also, I thought they were like a good neighbor.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there” means that they resemble a good neighbor only insofar as both share the attribute of existence.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 8 months ago

At least Geico is relatively honest. "Yes, we are a bunch of reptiles."

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Non-coastal new England is pretty safe. No earthquakes, few hurricane effects, almost no tornadoes, tends to stay damp enough and has enough old deciduous growth, where forest fires aren't a big issue.

I am sure there are other places that are low risk as well.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Where does the CEO live again?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Chicago area, apparently. Not exactly free from climate catastrophes.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

No place is 100% safe. Around the great lakes is probably one of the best places to be going forward though.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

Part of the problem is that many of the states where insurance companies are leaving have rules that limit what they can charge. That sounds good in principle, but with climate change causing these disasters to happen more often the insurance companies are bleeding money. Ultimately insurance as an industry can't work if you keep having losses, and if you can't increase prices to cope then you have no choice but to withdraw.

I've sure State Farm is happy to cover catastrophe-prone areas, but only if they won't lose money on average.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 8 months ago (34 children)

Being forced to have home insurance is ridiculous. Private companies jack up prices, make all the rules, and come and go as they please. We need to figure out a better system!

[–] [email protected] 23 points 8 months ago (4 children)

The only one forcing people to have homeowners insurance is mortgage companies, that want to ensure the collateral on that mortgage doesn’t disappear.

That and common sense, as even if you don’t have a mortgage, you also don’t want a disaster to make your largest asset go poof.

There is competition. That is meant to keep prices lower. But insuring people in disaster prone areas just isn’t a wise business decision.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 8 months ago

Not (re)building in areas prone to wildfires, mudslides, floods, and the like would be a good start. Otherwise, someone has to pay to rebuild when the ever more frequent disaster hits. State farm and other insurers suck in many ways, but this isn't unreasonable on their part.

load more comments (32 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 8 months ago

This further pushes up the costs of homeownership.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

There are some places you really should just not be building houses.

[–] [email protected] 47 points 8 months ago (3 children)

It's not about that. That's the insurance industry's cover story.
The real story is insurance companies giving a hissy fit about being subject to regulation by the state's insurance commissioner.
If the insurance industry was only dropping coverage in the middle of forests, or on beachfront or riverfront property, that would make sense. But it's not. They're dropping coverage on infill development in the middle of cities.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So much of this could be fixed by forcing electric companies to update their infrastructure and force them to bury power lines.

Or they should force the power company to pay the full cost of every home damaged by their outdated power lines triggering fires.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

It's not that simple. Yes, power lines do start a lot of fires, but climate change induced drought is the main cause of the scale and frequency of wildfires in California. If the conditions are right it's only a matter of time until something sets it off.

load more comments
view more: next ›