Los Angeles Fires Become Existential Test for California’s Stopgap Insurer

marindependent

Guru
1000 Post Club
From the Insurance Journal and Bloomberg
By Leslie Kaufman | January 9, 2025

The conflagrations tearing across Los Angeles are on track to be among the most expensive wildfire disasters in U.S. history, draining insurance coffers and threatening California's massive state-sponsored insurance program.

Losses from the fires "could push insurance markets over the brink in California," said Michael Wara, a senior researcher for climate and energy at Stanford University and a wildfire expert.

Related: California Wildfires Will Likely Lead to Large Economic and Insured Losses

It's an unprecedented test of the FAIR plan, the state-sponsored insurer of last resort. Pacific Palisades is the high-cost neighborhood at the center of the Palisades Fire. The FAIR plan has seen its exposure there skyrocket to $5.89 billion. Its policies in one ZIP code central to Pacific Palisades grew 85% between 2023 and 2024.

At least three fires continued to spread rapidly on Wednesday, more than a day after the initial fire outbreak. The Palisades Fire destroyed 300 structures and 13,306 remain threatened. The Hurst Fire, burning northwest of Los Angeles and Burbank, has threatened another 40,000 buildings, while the Eaton Fire burning near Pasadena has endangered more than 28,000 structures.

Related: California Commissioner Issues Regulation to Allow Reinsurance in Ratemaking

"It is plausible that the Palisades Fire in particular will become the costliest fire on record, period. Not just in California, but in general," said Daniel Swain, a University of California Los Angeles climatologist, in a briefing on Wednesday.

Long before the Palisades erupted in flames, the multimillion dollar homes in the area had become a concern to major insurers. That's because the homes are both extremely expensive and tightly packed together, which makes it easy for fires to jump from one property to another. The neighborhood is also located along steep canyons, which makes it less accessible for firefighters.

Related: California Commissioner Announces Regulation to Enable the Use of Modeling in Rates

The rise of massive wildfires in the state over the last several years has been exacerbated by climate change. Droughts have become more frequent as temperatures rise. The Los Angeles area has had no meaningful rain for many months, despite the fact that winter is usually the rainy season. The enormous volumes of claims following recent fires has taken a toll on insurers. Seven out of the 12 biggest home insurers have limited their coverage in California over the past two years, driven in part by increased fire risk.

Vehicles burn during the Eaton Fire in Altadena Jan. 8, 2025. The most destructive wind storm to strike the Los Angeles area in 14 years is fanning wildfires and has sent thousands of residents fleeing for their lives, with dangerous gusts expected to persist for at least another two days. Photographer: Jill Connelly/Bloomberg
State Farm General Insurance Co., California's largest property insurer, announced in March that it would not renew 72,000 home and apartment policies statewide. Pacific Palisades was hit particularly hard. The agency canceled 69% of its policies in the neighborhood's 90272 ZIP code.

In a statement, State Farm said: "Our number one priority right now is the safety of our customers, agents and employees impacted by the fires and assisting our customers in the midst of this tragedy."

When Californians can't find a traditional insurer to sell them a policy, they can turn to the FAIR Plan. In September, FAIR listed its exposure as $458 billion, up 61% from the previous year.

Firefighters battle the Eaton Fire in Altadena Jan. 8, 2025. The most destructive wind storm to strike the Los Angeles area in 14 years is fanning wildfires and has sent thousands of residents fleeing for their lives, with dangerous gusts expected to persist for at least another two days. Photographer: Jill Connelly/Bloomberg
Wara at Stanford warned that the state-run insurer does not have the basic infrastructure of assessors and personnel to handle claims. But the bigger question is whether the state can pay for resulting claims.

Reinsurance — or the insurance policies purchased by insurers to backstop claims — is in short supply. In testimony last year, the FAIR plan reported it had only about $2.5 billion in reinsurance and $200 million in surplus cash. If the fires continue to expand and destroy buildings, the damage could top the amount of resources the state-run plan has to pay claims.

Recently, however, California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara outlined a plan for such an emergency. At first, uncovered costs would be split between insurers and policy holders through additional assessments. Such assessments would have to be approved first by the commissioner, but they could be on any property or casualty policy, including auto.

A vehicle burns during the Eaton Fire in Altadena Jan. 8, 2025. The most destructive wind storm to strike the Los Angeles area in 14 years is fanning wildfires and has sent thousands of residents fleeing for their lives, with dangerous gusts expected to persist for at least another two days. Photographer: Jill Connelly/Bloomberg
In a statement, the FAIR plan said it's prepared to help its customers. "It is too early to provide loss estimates as claims are just beginning to be submitted and processed," it said. "The FAIR Plan has payment mechanisms in place, including reinsurance, to ensure all covered claims are paid."

Lara didn't respond to requests for comment on Wednesday.

"We are concerned," said Amy Bach, the executive director of United Policyholders, a consumer group. "We think the FAIR plan will have adequate funds to cover the claims unless the number of claims really jumps. We are watching very nervously."

Wara predicted the fires are "going to trigger further escalation in insurance costs in California." The reinsurers that back the major insurers will likely have to pay large sums to cover claims from this catastrophe. That means next year they will raise costs. Many reinsurers are located overseas, meaning they are not regulated by the U.S. and there are no caps on how much they can charge insurers.

Last month, Lara issued two regulations that aim to ease Californians' access to home insurance. The first change allows insurers to use catastrophe models when setting rates instead of relying solely on historical data, while the other one lets them pass along rises in reinsurance costs in their pricing. That could keep the insurers from canceling policies altogether, but prices will almost certainly rise for consumers.

"Without question" policy holders will pay more because of this, Bach said. "It will give insurers a very strong argument to support additional rate increases."

Top photo: A police vehicle drives past the Palisades Fire in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood of Los Angeles on Jan. 7. Photographer: Kyle Grillot/Bloomberg.
 
This is a sad and horrific story, but I would like to point out something that I believe is incorrect and somewhat biased in the story. Within the reporting above there is a comment about climate change and severe droughts impact. The link below will take you to a graph showing annual rainfall in LA since 1877. The data will show that there were no real severe droughts, relative to the past 100+ years.
 
Wow - when I posted this - this was not the discussion that I thought this alarming article would spur.

I assume you are referring to this statement in the article: "The rise of massive wildfires in the state over the last several years has been exacerbated by climate change. Droughts have become more frequent as temperatures rise. The Los Angeles area has had no meaningful rain for many months, despite the fact that winter is usually the rainy season. "

Question, when you posted your link - dd you think that it made the point that there is no drought in the past or that the droughts have made things worse?

My read of your chart is that before 1960 they never got less than 5 inches of rain a year. But including that year four times they have received less than 5 inches in a year. Your chart also seems to stop at the 2023/2024 year.

Your same almanac [if you were to dig into it] would show that in Oct of 2024 - LA usually gets ".58 inches of rain and got "0.0" - Novemeber usually sees ".78" inches of rain and only got ".14" and then in December they usually get "2.48" inces and got ".02". [Jan 25 shows nothing, but its unclear what that means.] Basically That means that the "Season Normal to Date" amount could be "3.99" inches and they only have ".16" inches a variance of 3.83 inches.

Perhaps I am not reading these numbers correctly?
 
Back
Top