Roundhouse effort to overhaul NM's home ‘insurer of last resort' fails
Rep. Harlan Vincent (R-Ruidoso Downs) asks questions of a panel at the Legislative Finance interim committee in Mescalero shortly after the South Fork and Salt fires. Vincent's bill to reform the state's residual insurance plan did not get through the Legislature, but he says lawmakers' other efforts will help the market cover New Mexicans who need it. (Photo by Danielle Prokop / Source NM)
Senate Bill 81, which aimed to make it easier for New Mexicans in wildfire-prone areas to secure home insurance, never received its final committee hearing in the 60-day session, but the bill's Republican sponsor said reason for optimism remains for those trying to rebuild after wildfires.
The bill would have required the board overseeing the Fair Access to Insurance Requirements plan to increase coverage limits to $750,000 for homes and overhauled a board now composed of insurance executives.
The state's top 10 home insurers have increased premiums 60%, on average, since 2022, and insurers are also increasingly refusing to renew policies or canceling them. That's what makes reforms to the FAIR plan, often referred to as the state's home 'insurer of last resort,' all the more necessary, sponsors have said.
NM Gov fire-insurance proposal 'won't happen this session'
Even with the increase of costs to rebuild homes and rising home prices, the plan only covered $250,000 of losses for most of its existence until shortly after the South Fork and Salt Fires in Ruidoso, when the board agreed to increase it to $350,000.
The FAIR plan board met again during the legislative session and increased the coverage limits to $750,000, plus up to $1 million for commercial properties, according to Rep. Harlan Vincent (R-Ruidoso Downs).
Increasing the coverage cap to $750,000 was expected to increase the number of FAIR plan holders from about 7,000 to about 11,000, state insurance officials have said.
'SB81 had lots of traction, and it was a bipartisan effort,' Vincent told Source New Mexico on Saturday, following a post-session press conference with Republican leaders. 'However, the board [was] able to meet all the demands that the bill was asking for, except for the reforming of the board.'
The bill's proposed board reforms included adding a consumer advocate, climate scientist and catastrophic risk expert to the board. It was amended again on the Senate floor to scrap that proposal and instead allow legislative leaders to appoint board members.
None of the proposed amendments would have allowed the public to see what happens in FAIR Plan board meetings, even though the Legislature created the FAIR plan in 1969 and sought a major overhaul of the program this session. Vincent told Source New Mexico he believes the meetings should be public, however.
'I'm a very transparent person,' he said. 'So, yes, I do.'
Why the state's insurance regulator thinks SB81 will save New Mexicans' homes from wildfire
Even without SB81, Vincent said he thinks other legislative acts this session will help homeowners protect their homes from wildfires and also get enough coverage to rebuild if they occur.
Several bills aim to address the insurance problem, directly or indirectly, including one that creates a state wildfire suppression fund and others that encourage or incentivize wildfire mitigation through the use of thinning and ignition-resistant construction materials.
'I'm thinking that a lot of our insurance problems are eventually going to start going away, traditional insurance starts to come back, because we were able to get four, three bills across the finish line that had to do with wildfire,' he said. 'So we're going to try to start doing wildfire mitigation so that we can make it not such a risk for insurance companies to come back.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Dominion Post
36 minutes ago
- Dominion Post
City creating second safe surrender site, cutting taxes for some small businesses
MORGANTOWN — The city of Morgantown is taking advantage of a recent change in state code to create the city's second safe surrender site. Safe surrender sites are designated locations at which newborns up to 30 days old can be dropped off while maintaining the anonymity of the person surrendering the child. In April 2024, Morgantown opened West Virginia's second Safe Haven Baby Box at the Norwood Fire Station. Earlier this year, the West Virginia Legislature expanded the allowable surrender sites beyond fire departments to include police departments, sheriff's departments and EMS facilities. In response, the city of Morgantown is looking to add the Morgantown Public Safety Building – home of the Morgantown Police Department – as a designated site. Unlike the Norwood setup, which includes dedicated infrastructure known as a 'baby box,' built directly into the fire station, a baby dropped at the Public Safety Building will be handed to a police officer. 'The police department, who is there 24-7, feel comfortable that they would be able to have policy and procedures to follow state code and be able to accept an infant less than 30 days old and get it to the nearest hospital facility,' Assistant City Manager Emily Muzzarelli said. 'It likely would go to the police supervisor … but it still requires the same anonymity. The person does not have to give their name or any information should they not want to.' Morgantown City Council recently passed the first reading of an ordinance creating a new section of code pertaining to the safe surrender sites. Safe surrender guidelines were previously under the city's fire code as fire stations were the only allowable locations under the law as it was passed by the West Virginia Legislature in 2023. In other business, council has passed on first reading amendments to the city's business license and business and occupation tax provisions. During its most recent session, the Legislature passed House Bill 2451, which eliminates the need for municipal business licensure as well as business and occupation tax liability for some businesses. City Attorney Ryan Simonton explained that in order to be eligible for the business license exemption, a business must be a sole proprietorship or independent contractor; cannot have a permanent physical location within the city; and must generate annual revenue below $2,500. In order to be exempt from business and occupation tax liability, a business must generate gross annual revenue below $2,500. Business and occupation taxes – or B&O taxes – are taxes charged by municipalities on business activity within the city. 'If they have $2,501 in revenue, they do have to pay taxes on that full amount,' he said. If adopted upon second reading on June 17, the changes will take effect at the July 1 start of the new fiscal year.
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump-Musk feud: Are electric vehicles and Tesla at the heart of the breakup?
The President of the United States of America and one of the world's most influential billionaires are at odds after months of collaboration. The confrontation escalated Thursday with Elon Musk saying Trump would have lost the election without him in a post on X. President Donald Trump in turn referred to his former senior advisor as "the man who lost his mind" in a Friday morning ABC News phone interview. Republican Trump allies are now also speaking out against Musk. Musk's breakup with the administration has been public and is well-documented, with Trump and the Tesla CEO trading calculated jabs like pro boxers. The underlying reason behind the sudden intense feud is a serious cause of concern for some American car buyers. "Clean Coal" has been a popular buzzword for not one but two presidential campaigns for Donald Trump. So, Elon Musk's initial choice to stand beside a global warming skeptic as the CEO of a clean energy and automotive company was puzzling to say the least. At first, Musk's involvement with the administration was seen by many as mutually beneficial, since the CEO could potentially reap the benefits of government contracts for Tesla and SpaceX. The general public quickly soured to the idea of the eccentric CEO playing a key role in the administration. By April 8, Tesla stock had nosedived 41.50% from its January 2 share price. Tesla dealers have been attacked and vandalized while other Americans have staged peaceful protests against Musk's involvement in government and role at the Department of Government Efficiency. So, why would a guy who once wore a "Trump Was Right About Everything" hat suddenly publicly oppose his new bill? The short answer is, the two don't see eye to eye on the automotive industry's most controversial powertrain option. The One, Big, Beautiful Bill could decimate Tesla. President Donald Trump's stance and actions against EV adoption in America includes: Supporting the One, Big, Beautiful Bill, which suggests phasing out a federal EV tax credit that would benefit thousands of Tesla buyers Claiming former President Joe Biden's EV mandate "would kill 40% of the auto industry's jobs", according to Ordering the shut down of many federal electric vehicle chargers and pausing massive federal EV fleet purchases, according to Elon Musk (and Tesla's) stance and actions for EV adoption in America: Elon Musk bio says "Tesla's mission has been to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy" Musk claimed "the world does need electric cars" during a 60 Minutes interview and factory tour, asserting that Tesla has a crucial role in the future of EVs Tesla has collaborated with Ford, GM, Stellantis, Rivian, Volkswagen, Honda, Acura, Hyundai, Kia, Toyota and more to provide Tesla Supercharger access to EVs, making them easier to charge for American drivers Tesla stock recently plummeted in response to the feud between Trump and Musk. The President has also threatened Musk's government contracts amidst the dispute. The bill appears to be the focal point of the rift, but the two clearly have different ideas on what America's future should be. President Donald Trump and Elon Musk may have been able to join forces over their mutual stances on certain conservative points and a hatred of bureaucracy, but their White House tag team was short-lived. The One, Big, Beautiful Bill directly undermines some of the actions Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency have taken since the two united. Trump is 78 years old and expresses a desire to bring America back to a golden age of manufacturing before globalism outsourced American jobs and created a reliance on foreign trade. He also speaks about returning the country to an age where mining and drilling for fossil fuel production were prioritized over environmental concerns. Musk, on the other hand, is a 53-year-old futurist who strives to make humans a multi-planetary species and has made a fortune from innovation and technological disruption. At a glance, the issue seems to be about the One, Big, Beautiful Bill attacking Tesla's bottom line but the two polarizing figures are fundamentally different in terms of future aspirations. Based on Trump's falling out with several former members of the first Trump administration and Musk's known adversarial nature in the private sector, this could be the end for, arguably, the most fascinating duo of 2025. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Donald Trump vs Elon Musk: Could Tesla, EVs be at the art of the feud?

Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Ohio budget moves closer to doing away with elected county coroners
Jun. 6—For now, the Ohio Senate is going along on an Ohio House plan to make county coroners appointed by county commissioners instead of being elected by county voters. But, while the Senate didn't change the House's proposal in its initial draft of the state's two-year operating budget, Senate President Rob McColley, R-Napoleon, told reporters that there's still a chance the Senate could eliminate the House's proposal when it amends the budget next week. McColley said he put a request out for those in his caucus with strong feelings on the matter to weigh in. "If members feel strongly that it should go back to the way that it is under current law, then there's a possibility to see an amendment here in the omnibus," McColley told this news outlet. "We didn't see a lot of members — we saw some — but we didn't see a lot of members asking for it to be changed back." The Senate is expected to make those amendments on Wednesday or Thursday of next week. The change could be consequential in counties where county commissioners and the coroner are different political parties. In Montgomery County, for example, the elected coroner is a Republican while Democrats hold two of the three seats on the county commission. The House's primary advocate for the change, county commissioner-turned-lawmaker Rep. Brian Stewart, R-Ashville, has framed the change as necessary to solve a scarcity issue. "It's really hard to find folks that want to serve as a coroner at all, it's even harder to find folks who are willing to be the coroner and want to run a political campaign to do so," Stewart said in April. But the proposed change is opposed by Ohio State Coroners Association, whose Executive Director David Corey told this outlet that he's still hopeful that former coroners in the Ohio Senate, like Sen. Matt Huffman, R-Tipp City, will help the Senate reverse course. "Commissioners already have the authority to appoint a physician to be coroner if no one runs," Corey said. "So they already have this authority — so why subject this as a blanket on everyone?" Corey noted that commissioners also already have the authority to contract out with different county coroner offices if there's no elected coroner and the commission cannot find an in-county physician that wants to be appointed. "We don't really know what (problem) the House is trying and the Senate are trying to fix ... other than chipping away at other elected officials," Corey said. Corey said the idea is "wrought with potential problems," and speculated that coroners appointed by commissioners might be more beholden to those officials than they are to the public. He said appointees could also be fired at will, which would make it harder for a coroner to stand up to the commission in budget negotiations or other high-stakes situations. "We just think it's a horrible precedent," Corey said. Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio, D-Lakewood, whose home county of Cuyahoga is one of two counties in the state where the position is already appointed following a local vote, told this outlet that she didn't like the sound of applying the idea to every coroner in the state. "You want the coroner to feel like they can have a lot of pressure on them," Antonio said. "If they're appointed, then it's almost like they have an affiliation to the person that appointed them." She said this could lead to undue influence. "I think we, probably in the long run, would be better off continuing to have them be elected," Antonio said. ------ For more stories like this, sign up for our Ohio Politics newsletter. It's free, curated, and delivered straight to your inbox every Thursday evening. Avery Kreemer can be reached at 614-981-1422, on X, via email, or you can drop him a comment/tip with the survey below.