California’s Fair Plan Balks at State’s ‘Misguided’ Order to Expand Coverage

November 18, 2019

  • November 18, 2019 at 1:10 pm
    Mark B says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 9
    Thumb down 2

    Kinda like Stealing from Peter to pay Paul.

  • November 18, 2019 at 1:23 pm
    KevinD says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 8
    Thumb down 2

    If a politician is kissing a baby, they are normally stealing their lollipops.

  • November 18, 2019 at 3:41 pm
    Mark Ambrose says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 1

    We’re not doing enough to prevent wildfires, so make sure that your policy holders are on the hook to provide more coverage. No we won’t increase taxes or do anything different about wildfires. How dare you suggest such a thing.

  • November 18, 2019 at 4:34 pm
    Jimbo says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 1

    I’d be kinda glad if they did make this move. I lose alot of fair plan policies because I have to write a wrap to fill in the gaps. Clients don’t like paying for 2 policies on 1 property. The down side is now you have a quasi state agency that was never meant to be an insurer in the “normal market” taking on a large share of a high risk market. Will they be able to pay year after year for large scale events?

    I feel my check book aching at tax time.

  • November 18, 2019 at 9:09 pm
    Observor says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 15
    Thumb down 1

    The expanded coverages would include liability which would require a new range of expertise on the claim handling side especially with commercial lines. I guess the expanded coverage would allow people with vicious pit bulls to buy their homeowners insurance of last resort from the FAIR Plan. All homes and business would subsidize these risks.

    Again, the best solution is for the Department to expedite approvals from admitted carriers so that they can properly price and adjust some coverages for those hard to insure areas. Over time, the free market will adjust pricing based on experience and how the reinsurance world prices and invests their capital. Not perfect, but over the long term it is the system that works the best for the consumer. If it costs more to live in Malibu or some other California brush area, let the homeowners pay without the subsidization.

  • November 19, 2019 at 6:38 pm
    Hector Projector says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 0

    You would think an elected liberal politician would play the “go after the rich people” card. For people who buy houses in brush areas, require them to pay into their own pool. Or increase requirements for clearing brush, at the rich homeowner’s expense. Oh wait, that won’t work, this is California. Too many rich Democrats living in those mansions in the hills.

  • November 21, 2019 at 12:19 pm
    Smooth says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    I learn so much about California on this website. The issues there seem easily fixable, but nothing is being fixed. Is that because of the political divide?



Add a Comment

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

*