California Legislation Aims to Clarify Mudslide Insurance

By | May 21, 2018

  • May 21, 2018 at 2:24 pm
    mrbob says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 6
    Thumb down 0

    Although I agree that the fire presented conditions that made it more possible for potential mud slide. The cause of those slides was not the fire but rather extreme rainfall in a short period of time. Had only a 1/4 inch of rain fallen and or the 1 inch been over 2-3 days the probability of any slide would be far less.

  • May 21, 2018 at 3:01 pm
    Mark B says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 0

    If this passes how far could you take it. For example, there was a fire and the foliage is now gone. Potential for a mud slide has increased in the event of catastrophic rain. What about the following year. Foliage is not grown back. Are insurance companies still on the hook? How about 2-5 more years and so on. Where do you cut it off that an insurance company has to assume a mud slide risk? Will there now need to be some type of determination when the foliage is now able to bear the load of high rains. Just an FYI, mud slides can happen with trees still intact.

    • May 21, 2018 at 5:26 pm
      Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 1

      Coming from a state that thinks coffee gives people Cancer. California = Dysfunctional

    • May 22, 2018 at 4:08 am
      Tim says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Agree Mark, and if we take it even further…. fire following an earthquake?

  • May 21, 2018 at 10:22 pm
    County Line says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 0

    These politicians are looking first after their wealthy political donors populating the coastal enclaves at highest risk for such losses. Though these legislators may not openly admit it, they know full well that the broader policy language they propose will increase home insurance pricing for everyone in the state.

    But wait a minute here; these particular legislators and their super-dominant party say they are in power to “look out for The Little Guy”. Calling that their purpose is a self-serving smokescreen behind which to hide their real motive–POWER. They love their seats of power and rely on their wealthy coastal area political donors for re-election to keep them there. It is no coincidence these legislators are finding novel ways to protect their largest donors, and quietly at the Little Guy’s expense.

    The Little Guy represents the majority of homeowners who bought in safer areas because they can’t afford to live in the coastal zones. Yet as this new legislation proposes, The Little Guy will end up subsidizing the cost of coverage for the coastal elites, who will in turn fund those legislators remaining in power. It seems the very definition of “vicious cycle”.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *