Look Away - The California Insurance Market will be Just fine, Politicians to the Rescue

[Markthebroker]

Interesting. They can rate for climate change. Not for the rising cost of rebuilding homes. Not for the rising cost of auto repairs. Not for the super fires due to poor land management. Not for the epli and liquor liability claims due to the overly ambitious, unnecessary, illegal, unscientific, terrifically harmful, inconsistent and sloppy shutdowns. Not for the rise in crime due to terrible politics.

Climate change. Uh huh. That's the reason. Uh huh.

 

[marindependent]

[QUOTE="Markthebroker, post: 1470522, member: 77312" Not for the epli and liquor liability claims due to the overly ambitious, unnecessary, illegal, unscientific, terrifically harmful, inconsistent and sloppy shutdowns. Uh huh.[/QUOTE]

Well perhaps the rapant liquor liabilty claims arise because of the increased full moon activity due to smoke in the air caused by Climate driven Wildfires and filed under an EPLI policy? What does efficient proximate cause have to say about that?

 

[Markthebroker]

[QUOTE="Markthebroker, post: 1470522, member: 77312" Not for the epli and liquor liability claims due to the overly ambitious, unnecessary, illegal, unscientific, terrifically harmful, inconsistent and sloppy shutdowns. Uh huh.

Well perhaps the rapant liquor liabilty claims arise because of the increased full moon activity due to smoke in the air caused by Climate driven Wildfires and filed under an EPLI policy? What does efficient proximate cause have to say about that?[/QUOTE]
Well I guess I stand corrected, then.

 

[Allen Trent]

Interesting. They can rate for climate change. Not for the rising cost of rebuilding homes. Not for the rising cost of auto repairs. Not for the super fires due to poor land management. Not for the epli and liquor liability claims due to the overly ambitious, unnecessary, illegal, unscientific, terrifically harmful, inconsistent and sloppy shutdowns. Not for the rise in crime due to terrible politics.

Climate change. Uh huh. That's the reason. Uh huh.

Based on my news feed, everything you mention is the outcome of climate change

 

[scagnt83]

IMO. The largest issue with homeowners insurance are building codes in high risk areas.

Houses can be built to be hurricane proof.
People choose not to, and building codes do not force it.

Houses can be built to be resistant to wildfires.
People choose not to, and building codes do not force it.

Building codes in FL are a joke around the coast. Going back 30+ years, they are worse than a joke. Older ocean front houses have wood pilings that are just dug into the dirt, no concrete, and only 10 feet below ground level.

The current coastal build codes for a home are a lot better, but still very lax compared to what is needed to survive most FL hurricanes.

But the homebuilders association and other special interest groups (like realtors) have spent billions keeping lax building codes in FL. Stricter codes means more money to build a house, and it eats into their profit margins.

Same out west. They still use roofing and siding materials that are not the most flame resistant possible. Its more expensive, and they are not required to do so.

Ever tried to light a metal roof on fire? Ever tried to burn a piece of HardieBoard siding? Cant do it.

 

[marindependent]

The largest issue with homeowners insurance are building codes in high risk areas.

I think building codes can be much better. However I think that there are limits.

Building codes in FL are a joke around the coast.

I will take your word for it and believe you are correct.

Houses can be built to be resistant to wildfires.

Resistant, yes. Immune - no way. Its hard to imagine a home being affordably built to be protected from these extreme wildfires.

They still use roofing and siding materials that are not the most flame resistant possible.

In many areas you are correct, though this is rapidly changing now, especially in mountain communities.

Ever tried to light a metal roof on fire? Ever tried to burn a piece of HardieBoard siding?

Yes, that makes them resistant. But don't fool yourself. A house can ignite just from the radiant heat: " If a house receives enough radiant heat for a sufficient time, it will ignite without flames contacting it." Source. The Camp Fire was" hot enough to melt car parts. " And the amount of damage that smoke alone can cause is shocking. A home can easily survive a wildfire and then get taken out by a mudslide.

I think there is a general lack of understanding of the magnitute of wildfires in much of the US. Unfortunately Californians have quickly come up to speed with it. They literally can become hurricanes of fire. complete with their own weather systems.

I agree that home hardening can help and will continue - but Im not sure it will solve the problem by itself.

Ill get off my soap box now.

 

[Markthebroker]

I think building codes can be much better. However I think that there are limits.

I will take your word for it and believe you are correct.

Resistant, yes. Immune - no way. Its hard to imagine a home being affordably built to be protected from these extreme wildfires.

In many areas you are correct, though this is rapidly changing now, especially in mountain communities.

Yes, that makes them resistant. But don't fool yourself. A house can ignite just from the radiant heat: " If a house receives enough radiant heat for a sufficient time, it will ignite without flames contacting it." Source. The Camp Fire was" hot enough to melt car parts. " And the amount of damage that smoke alone can cause is shocking. A home can easily survive a wildfire and then get taken out by a mudslide.

I think there is a general lack of understanding of the magnitute of wildfires in much of the US. Unfortunately Californians have quickly come up to speed with it. They literally can become hurricanes of fire. complete with their own weather systems.

I agree that home hardening can help and will continue - but Im not sure it will solve the problem by itself.

Ill get off my soap box now.

Don't worry. I'm sure all our problems will be solved by our hero, lord and savior, Retardo Lara.

I'm just kidding. We all know the real solutions won't come until ACV Alex takes over. Right @Al3x Lee ?

 

[scagnt83]

Yes, that makes them resistant. But don't fool yourself. A house can ignite just from the radiant heat: " If a house receives enough radiant heat for a sufficient time, it will ignite without flames contacting it." Source. The Camp Fire was" hot enough to melt car parts. " And the amount of damage that smoke alone can cause is shocking. A home can easily survive a wildfire and then get taken out by a mudslide.

I think there is a general lack of understanding of the magnitute of wildfires in much of the US. Unfortunately Californians have quickly come up to speed with it. They literally can become hurricanes of fire. complete with their own weather systems.

I agree that home hardening can help and will continue - but Im not sure it will solve the problem by itself.

Ill get off my soap box now.

Very true, it will never be "fire proof". And there are many other factors to consider aside from the fire itself.

But there is a lot they can do. Metal studs, cement walls, metal roofs. Then you clear trees and brush from around the house in a set perimeter. Metal roofs alone would be a huge improvement. Why on earth would you use flammable asphalt shingles in an area that is prone to wildfires?? Or siding material for that matter.

 

[marindependent]

Here is another solid article on the subject. Although I still do not understand the basics of this.
Can this plan fix California's insurance crisis? What you need to know
BY BEN CHRISTOPHERSEPTEMBER 21, 2023

 

[Al3x Lee]

Don't worry. I'm sure all our problems will be solved by our hero, lord and savior, Retardo Lara.

I'm just kidding. We all know the real solutions won't come until ACV Alex takes over. Right @Al3x Lee ?

I'll try mailing Mr. Retardo a letter with my fabulous ideas; perhaps we can get the ball rolling before California is consumed by hellfire. I assume he reads these forums and assumed my insurance concepts were some type of mockery or parody. I mean, why else would he try to come up with ideas that were even more outlandish than my proposals? - Not to say my ideas shouldn't be taken completely seriously because, as I've iterated many times, they are very well thought out and serious.