I wonder whether there is adequate scientific evidence to support a rate increase filing by Travelers based on Global Warming, er, Climate Change? Will the liberal California Insurance Commissioner reject the proposed increase by denying ‘Climate Change’ as a primary substantiating factor in the Travelers’ pending filing? Or, will the Commish allow the increase (change) based on that premise, in essence, affirming the (alleged) impact of man on the Earth’s environment / climate, but likely drawing public ire due to the increase allowed?
If the Commissioner believes there is climate change and Travelers wants to increase rates, what better excuse then to use climate change as the reason. Commissioner is hard pressed to say no to something he firmly is convinced existes. This is what I would would do.
The commissioner is going to need to allow admitted markets some freedom on rates and coverage to make sure that consumers can still access property insurance. The other factor to consider is the recent legislation requiring insurers cover mudslides and to reimburse contents coverage at a certain percentage after a catastrophic event. In a few years, will non-admitted markets dominate personal property insurance in California?
How is raising the rates going to mitigate the risk of fire danger? The risk of fire is nothing new in California being a semi-desert climate. Every year there are fires in the Western states, not just California. It seems the insurance companies are taking the opportunity to raise the rates based on disaster in some areas. This why there is insurance in case. The risk is no more less even with climate change.
I wonder whether there is adequate scientific evidence to support a rate increase filing by Travelers based on Global Warming, er, Climate Change? Will the liberal California Insurance Commissioner reject the proposed increase by denying ‘Climate Change’ as a primary substantiating factor in the Travelers’ pending filing? Or, will the Commish allow the increase (change) based on that premise, in essence, affirming the (alleged) impact of man on the Earth’s environment / climate, but likely drawing public ire due to the increase allowed?
If the Commissioner believes there is climate change and Travelers wants to increase rates, what better excuse then to use climate change as the reason. Commissioner is hard pressed to say no to something he firmly is convinced existes. This is what I would would do.
The commissioner is going to need to allow admitted markets some freedom on rates and coverage to make sure that consumers can still access property insurance. The other factor to consider is the recent legislation requiring insurers cover mudslides and to reimburse contents coverage at a certain percentage after a catastrophic event. In a few years, will non-admitted markets dominate personal property insurance in California?
Travelers would be smart to exit California since they go from one disaster to another. Leave to excess Surplus Lines since that is what they deserve.
How is raising the rates going to mitigate the risk of fire danger? The risk of fire is nothing new in California being a semi-desert climate. Every year there are fires in the Western states, not just California. It seems the insurance companies are taking the opportunity to raise the rates based on disaster in some areas. This why there is insurance in case. The risk is no more less even with climate change.