Wow, trying this again. There is a thing called a DIC you know. How about allowing carriers to add their reinsurance costs into the premium so traditional carriers can expand their reach into difficult areas.
CA property owners needs options. The property owners in Wildfire/Brush area’s do not have ANY options. For CA Fair Plan to say it’s voluntary is an incorrect statement. They are forced to go with CA Fair Plan and a DIC policy which makes it much more expensive than if CA Fair Plan could offer a standard HO3 policy. All other CA residents have many options to shop for insurance. But the residents that live near a hill has only 1…unless they go the surplus route. CA Fair Plan needs to re-evaluate and get CA wildfire/brush zone residents options!
How would you know the rate would be less if Fair Plan offered an HO3. No pricing has been set and Fair Plan is not designed to handle the additional risk. FP would have to triple their staff and would be asked to extend their risk way beyond their reach. The DOI needs to allow carriers to price for reinsurance like they do in other states. The carriers would not hold back so much and can price accordingly the risk.
Both defensible space and structure modification to eliminate or mitigate points vulnerable to ignition by flame or embers have been demonstrated in post fire damage assessments to substantially reduce the probability of ignition by wildfire and the extent of damage and loss.
Much of the relevant research has been done by the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Research results and recommended fire protection actions are distributed by the National Fire Protection Association. US Forest Service research at the San Dimas fire laboratory evaluated the effectiveness of foams, gels, wraps, and coatings.
Both FAIR Plan and insurance companies should no longer ignore these specific-to-wildfire recommendations. Methods for determining insure-ability currently used are grosser than they need to be. A finer set of decision rules based on the science would both (safely to insurers) provide insurance to ignition resistant structures even in high fire hazard areas and would avoid insuring ignition vulnerable structures in areas of lower — but still significant — wildfire hazard and risk.
Wow, trying this again. There is a thing called a DIC you know. How about allowing carriers to add their reinsurance costs into the premium so traditional carriers can expand their reach into difficult areas.
CA property owners needs options. The property owners in Wildfire/Brush area’s do not have ANY options. For CA Fair Plan to say it’s voluntary is an incorrect statement. They are forced to go with CA Fair Plan and a DIC policy which makes it much more expensive than if CA Fair Plan could offer a standard HO3 policy. All other CA residents have many options to shop for insurance. But the residents that live near a hill has only 1…unless they go the surplus route. CA Fair Plan needs to re-evaluate and get CA wildfire/brush zone residents options!
How would you know the rate would be less if Fair Plan offered an HO3. No pricing has been set and Fair Plan is not designed to handle the additional risk. FP would have to triple their staff and would be asked to extend their risk way beyond their reach. The DOI needs to allow carriers to price for reinsurance like they do in other states. The carriers would not hold back so much and can price accordingly the risk.
Both defensible space and structure modification to eliminate or mitigate points vulnerable to ignition by flame or embers have been demonstrated in post fire damage assessments to substantially reduce the probability of ignition by wildfire and the extent of damage and loss.
Much of the relevant research has been done by the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Research results and recommended fire protection actions are distributed by the National Fire Protection Association. US Forest Service research at the San Dimas fire laboratory evaluated the effectiveness of foams, gels, wraps, and coatings.
Both FAIR Plan and insurance companies should no longer ignore these specific-to-wildfire recommendations. Methods for determining insure-ability currently used are grosser than they need to be. A finer set of decision rules based on the science would both (safely to insurers) provide insurance to ignition resistant structures even in high fire hazard areas and would avoid insuring ignition vulnerable structures in areas of lower — but still significant — wildfire hazard and risk.