←back to thread

Is the world becoming uninsurable?

(charleshughsmith.substack.com)
478 points spking | 1 comments | 17 Jan 25 00:32 UTC | HN request time: 0.209s | source
Show context
tobyhinloopen ◴[17 Jan 25 07:13 UTC] No.42734903[source]▶
American, living in area prone to natural disasters: "Is the WHOLE WORLD becoming uninsurable?"

The answer is obviously "no" since there are other parts of the world that don't live on a hurricane highway nor build houses made from firewood in an area prone to wildfires.

replies(22): >>42735049 #>>42735252 #>>42735436 #>>42736011 #>>42736604 #>>42736730 #>>42737082 #>>42737199 #>>42737348 #>>42737687 #>>42738099 #>>42738455 #>>42738961 #>>42740444 #>>42740756 #>>42741668 #>>42741813 #>>42742051 #>>42742463 #>>42743561 #>>42744077 #>>42744352 #
hintymad ◴[17 Jan 25 19:07 UTC] No.42742051[source]▶
Do we know why the insurance companies can't simply raise the insurance price to match the risks in those areas that are prone to natural disasters? I mean in general, not as in California where the government imposes strange policies. Speaking of the policy, why wouldn't California allow the insurance company raise the premium by region? Doesn't such policy benefit the rich at the cost of the poor as the rich love to live by the hills, lakes, or beaches, which is very much against the ideology of California?
replies(3): >>42742187 #>>42743353 #>>42745635 #
KerrAvon ◴[17 Jan 25 19:20 UTC] No.42742187[source]▶
It's more complicated than that, as always. Here's some (incomplete) background on Florida:

https://www.civilbeat.org/2024/03/how-floridas-home-insuranc...

Re: California, I don't understand the context for your question, or why you would think the California government is more strange than any other US state government. There's no universally-accepted "ideology of California." It's a big state with a huge, diverse population.

tl;dr, though: California does allow insurers to do that, but is using currently an antiquated set of rules that don't allow for modern risk management approaches. It's been rewriting those rules recently to fix this; I think the new rules are supposed to be in effect starting this year.

replies(3): >>42742394 #>>42743538 #>>42743670 #
1. hintymad ◴[17 Jan 25 21:54 UTC] No.42743670[source]▶
It was based on some reports (or podcast? I can't remember) that the California government didn't allow the insurers to sufficiently increase their premiums in the burnt areas. The government (or the insurers) cited two reasons: there was a rule that the annual increase should be no more than 7%, and that if they want to make an exception then the insurers must increase the premiums for all the insured areas instead of setting the price by risk. As a result, the insurers stopped insurance renewal for about 60% of the burnt properties. I assume the intention is to protect the insured or to ensure certain equity, hence the use of the term "ideology". FWIW, it thought it was a neutral term, implying that it's a strongly held fundamental belief.