logo
Critical California insurer calls for $1 billion infusion to cover LA wildfire claims

Critical California insurer calls for $1 billion infusion to cover LA wildfire claims

USA Today12-02-2025

Recovery efforts in Southern California are underway after deadly wildfires last month. But the state's last-resort property insurance provider needs a $1 billion infusion from private insurance companies to help pay millions in claims after the devastating blazes, officials said this week.
The California Department of Insurance said Tuesday they will allow the FAIR Plan, designed for Californians who can't get coverage on the private market, to collect $1 billion from private insurers doing business in California to help pay victims.
The request comes more than a month after the now-contained Eaton and Palisades wildfires killed at least 29 people, burned more than 37,000 acres and destroyed nearly 17,000 structures. As the blazes remain under investigation, they are the second and third most destructive wildfires in California history, according to Cal Fire.
The FAIR Plan has already paid more than $700 million to policyholders. About 5,000 claims have been made from those two fires alone, state officials reported last week.
"Wildfire survivors can't cash 'what ifs' to pay for food and rent, but they can cash FAIR Plan checks," California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara said in a statement.
Still, experts have warned any wildfire-related assessments would likely drive up insurance costs for home and property owners across California, with insurers likely opting to either drop policies or decline new ones.
And the call for $1 billion in additional funds has critics in the state. Advocacy group Consumer Watchdog is contemplating filing a lawsuit alleging consumers in California may ultimately have to cover the additional funding for the FAIR Plan. Consumer Watchdog's Executive Director Carmen Balber described Lara's request as a "bailout."
"The FAIR Plan is in trouble because insurance companies dumped too many homeowners. That's why insurers are on the hook for FAIR Plan losses," Balber said in a statement, arguing private companies shouldn't meet payments for the plan by charging California residents more.
How does this California plan work? What's its role in the LA area wildfires?
The FAIR Plan, a not-for-profit catastrophe insurer, consists of a pool of companies required by law to provide insurance to property owners who can't find affordable, private rates. The FAIR Plan typically has higher premiums and limited coverage. It's user base has spiked in recent years, with FAIR now reporting more than 451,000 policies, about double the total in 2020, according to the insurer's website.
And, the value of properties insured by the FAIR Plan also totaled more than $458 billion as of September, up from $153 billion in 2020, FAIR's site said. Almost $6 billion worth of property is in Pacific Palisades, where the Palisades fire ripped through.
'What America should look like':Loss in the Altadena fires, and a hard road to recovery
While touring the massive damage from last month's wildfires, California Gov. Gavin Newsom told reporters, "My dad's house is under the FAIR Plan, the state's plan. Very expensive and it's not great coverage."
The latest ask also likely won't be the only funding request for the important plan, said Char Miller, an environmental analysis professor at Pomona College in Claremont, California.
"I think the additional $1 billion in funds is the first of many of such needs and it testifies to the extraordinary powers of these fires to consume land and budgets," Miller said. "The FAIR Plan estimates losses of $4 billion and I think that's too low as the costs will definitely continue to expand over the next two years or so."
Miller added while the $1 billion in proposed money focuses on property damage due to wildfires, the region will still have to contend with possible mudslides with rain expected later this week. Any damage could lead to victims facing additional losses and filing more insurance claims, Miller said.
The latest call is also the first time the Fair Plan has sought approval for additional funds in more than three decades, Lara said. The last time was after the Kinneloa Fire in Altadena and the Old Topanga Fire in Malibu and Topanga in 1993. The additional funds approved then are equivalent to $563 million today, the state said. The insurance commissioner added some of those same areas were also affected by this year's wildfires.
"The fact that we are once again facing this issue 30 years after wildfires devastated these same communities highlights the need for change," said Lara, who is again pushing state legislation for the FAIR Plan to access credit lines and catastrophe bonds to help pay claims in worst-case scenarios.
"Thirty years of stagnant regulations have placed more people at risk," Lara said. "I urge the Legislature to act quickly and send it to the Governor's desk."

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

State Senators Overwhelmingly Vote to Raise Car Dealership Fees 488%
State Senators Overwhelmingly Vote to Raise Car Dealership Fees 488%

Miami Herald

timean hour ago

  • Miami Herald

State Senators Overwhelmingly Vote to Raise Car Dealership Fees 488%

California's state Senate has approved legislation allowing car dealers to charge buyers up to 1% of a vehicle's purchase price in document processing fees, with a $500 cap. This $500 limit represents an increase of nearly 500% from the current cap of $85, and the average starting price of a new car in May was $48,656, Cox Automotive reports. The bill passed with only one Senator voting against it, and its supporters, including California's New Car Dealers Association, say the fee is necessary since the $85 cap hasn't kept pace with the state's rising business costs over the decades. Processing paperwork that the added costs would help pay for includes loan documents, fraud protection forms, and Department of Motor Vehicles registration. Anthony Samson, the California New Car Dealers Association's lobbyist, said in April that other businesses can recoup similar costs through service charges, but dealers can't. "If we believed we could simply recover our costs and the price of the vehicle, I assure you that we would not be here today asking for your support on this measure," Samson said, according to Cal Matters. However, Senator Dave Cortese said he's working with the California New Car Dealers Association to lower the fee's ceiling when it's heard in the Assembly. Senator Henry Stern was the only Senator who voted against the bill, noting he feels that car sellers have undermined the state's efforts to protect consumers and the environment with actions like lobbying for the U.S. Senate to pass federal legislation blocking California's electric vehicle mandates. "The car dealers haven't earned the trust to justify this major increase in junk fees," Stern said, according to Cal Matters. Ray Shefska, CarEdge Co-Founder, added that "This bill reinforces that in America, whether it be national, state, or local, we have the best politicians money can buy. When things are already barely affordable, let's by all means make it even more difficult for people buying cars in California." The California New Car Dealers Association has donated $2.9 million to the state's lawmakers since 2015, according to Digital Democracy's database. One California Senator, Carolyn Menjivar, didn't vote on Tuesday but stated: "If we're looking to help everyday Californians with affordability, why are we looking at helping an industry that is making a healthy profit?" California is one of the most expensive states to buy a car since it charges the highest sales tax rate at 7.25% and imposes significant registration fees. The document processing fees vote occurred amid reports of auto dealers using incentive strategies to sustain profits without raising vehicle prices in reaction to Trump's tariffs. State government vehicle purchases are exempt from the document charge. House Assembly members still have to vote on the car dealer fees bill before it heads to California's Governor for approval or veto. If the House Assembly approves the legislation in its current form, a $500 cap could increase Governor Newsom's chances of vetoing it. Florida has the highest car dealer document fees in the U.S., with its $999 cap, followed by Virginia at $799, and Colorado registering third at $699. Copyright 2025 The Arena Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

41% of California households ‘cost burdened' — some making six figures now even qualify for low-income housing
41% of California households ‘cost burdened' — some making six figures now even qualify for low-income housing

Yahoo

time5 hours ago

  • Yahoo

41% of California households ‘cost burdened' — some making six figures now even qualify for low-income housing

California is in the midst of a housing affordability crisis. And whether you are renting or buying, 'the salaries that people once strived for often are no longer enough,' reporter Steve Large with CBS News Sacramento said. Household income levels — based on the latest data from California's Department of Housing and Community Development — are used to determine eligibility for certain housing assistance programs. Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 6 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast) Nervous about the stock market in 2025? Find out how you can access this $1B private real estate fund (with as little as $10) Some of those income levels at which people qualify for low-income housing assistance are 'mind-boggling,' Chelsea Carmack, who recently moved to California, told CBS News Sacramento. In the Bay Area, for instance, the low-income threshold for individuals is $111,700 in Santa Clara and $109,700 in San Francisco and San Mateo counties. 'I love the weather,' Carmack told Large, adding that when it comes to finding housing, 'it's been very challenging to adapt to the higher cost of living.' Now her California dream is simply 'to survive.' That applies to many Californians. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development considers homeowners cost-burdened if they spend more than 30% of their monthly income on housing, including utilities. They're severely cost-burdened if that figure tops 50%. These households 'may have difficulty affording necessities such as food, clothing, transportation and medical care,' according to HUD. In California, where homes cost about twice as much as the typical U.S. home, 41.1% of households were cost-burdened in 2023 — the highest proportion in the country, according to California's Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) housing affordability tracker. LAO also found that the annual household income needed to qualify for a mortgage on a mid-tier California home in March 2025 was about $234,000 — more than double the state's 2023 median household income of $96,500.' If you're looking for a starter home, you'll likely need to earn at least $142,000. And if you're eyeing a two-bedroom place, your monthly payments could be nearly double what you'd pay in rent. While the situation in California is severe, affordability is an issue across the country. In 2023, 41.8 million people — or 32.8% of all households — were cost-burdened. That includes just over half of renters (51.8%) and nearly a quarter of homeowners (23.3%). Read more: Want an extra $1,300,000 when you retire? Dave Ramsey says — and that 'anyone' can do it Lenders generally require that your payments for principal, interest, taxes and insurance don't exceed 25% to 28% of your gross monthly income. Combined with long-term debt, your total obligations usually shouldn't exceed 33% to 36%. These are useful limits, but it's a good idea to stay well below them if you can. Consider your lifestyle and other financial goals. For example, are you willing to skip dining out to afford a bigger home? Do you want enough room in your budget to max out your 401(k) and save for retirement? Start with your take-home pay. Build a budget that accounts for your lifestyle, fixed costs and priorities, then decide what you can comfortably afford in housing costs each month. Factor in not just your mortgage but utilities, insurance and maintenance. Make sure you have wiggle room in case rates or costs increase. Also consider upfront costs like legal fees, moving expenses and renovations. If you're a first-time buyer, you may also need new furniture and household basics. Saving for a larger down payment can help reduce your monthly costs. Paying down other debts could free up more income and improve your credit score, which may lower your mortgage rate. And don't forget an emergency fund — aim to cover three to six months of expenses. That way, if you lose your job or face a financial setback, you can stay afloat without piling on more debt. If you're already house-poor, start by creating a budget and cutting unnecessary spending. You might need to boost your income with a new job, side gig or second job. To ease housing costs, consider getting a roommate or renter. Downsizing, refinancing or relocating could also make a big difference. A move to another state might be worth considering if your job and lifestyle allow it. Some states have high rates of cost-burdened homeowners — like California (31.9%) and New York (28.2%) — while others, such as North Dakota (15.6%) and West Virginia (14.6%) have much lower rates. That said, avoid frequent moves, which come with added costs. And try to resist lifestyle creep — upgrading your home every time your income rises can trap you in a cycle of spending. You need a place to live — but you also need to live. Make sure your housing costs align with your overall financial plan so you can still meet your other life goals. Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — here are the alternative assets they're banking on instead How much cash do you plan to keep on hand after you retire? Here are 3 of the biggest reasons you'll need a substantial stash of savings in retirement Robert Kiyosaki warns of a 'Greater Depression' coming to the US — with millions of Americans going poor. But he says these 2 'easy-money' assets will bring in 'great wealth'. How to get in now Here are 5 'must have' items that Americans (almost) always overpay for — and very quickly regret. How many are hurting you? Like what you read? Join 200,000+ readers and get the best of Moneywise straight to your inbox every week. This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

CW To Big Three: NY Times Investigation Reveals East Coast Regional Grid Disaster And Shows Need To Shelve Western Regional Grid Plans In SB 540
CW To Big Three: NY Times Investigation Reveals East Coast Regional Grid Disaster And Shows Need To Shelve Western Regional Grid Plans In SB 540

Yahoo

timea day ago

  • Yahoo

CW To Big Three: NY Times Investigation Reveals East Coast Regional Grid Disaster And Shows Need To Shelve Western Regional Grid Plans In SB 540

SACRAMENTO, Calif., June 10, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Consumer Watchdog wrote to Governor Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders today pointing out a new New York Times investigation about the failure of the East Coast regional grid as a cause to shelve plans for a West Coast regional grid that just passed the California Senate, SB 540 (Becker). "An investigation published today by the New York Times reveals such serious problems in pricing and reliability from the regional electricity grid manager PJM, which serves states like Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland, that five governors have been sharply critical and called for withdrawal or overhaul," Consumer Watchdog President Jamie Court wrote. "Electricity prices have risen 40 percent over the last five years and reliability issues have deteriorated. PJM, for its part, pointed to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as the problem. Governors are left largely helpless to help their states because of FERC control. FERC for its part said the regional organizations are ineffective and FERC chair Mark Christie asked at a meeting last week if the organizations had failed and should be replaced." Read the letter and the investigation. "Given this record, why would California rush headlong into a regional market – particularly without the check and balance of the legislature getting to vote again before joining in 2027?" Court continued. "The reason is because industry and its powerful electricity workers union demand it. That's not good enough for consumers, for the environment, and it shouldn't be good enough for any of you. This investigation is a warning about what's to come if we don't learn from the experiences of the past and of other states. I urge you to take it seriously or the consequences will be shared by all of us." "What the problem is at PJM is that it is controlled and influenced by the corporate energy companies that constitute its membership," said Tyson Slocum, director of the energy program at Public Citizen, a nonprofit research and consumer group. "It puts energy company lobbyists in the driver's seat at PJM." "What is clear from this story is that a regional market is no panacea for fulfilling the growing power needs of the state driven largely by AI data centers," said Court. "This is not the time to be throwing California's electricity needs to a regional organization that California cannot control and is not subject to California's price and reliability laws put in place post Enron. Yet that is exactly what SB 540 (Becker) does. It trusts the traders to create a viable system despite the evidence of their inability to do so elsewhere and their profit motive to make that system as expensive as possible." Court pointed to statements (transcript) by FERC Chairman Christie last week calling into question the viability of a regional organization to mediate between the interests of coal-using and non-coal-using states and the viability of the market itself. "After a quarter century of using these administrative constructs called markets, particularly capacity markets, is it time to say, and particularly with regard to the capacity markets, have they failed? And should they be replaced? And if they should be replaced, what should they be replaced with? That's a compelling question, and I think after 25 years, it is time to ask it." View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE Consumer Watchdog Sign in to access your portfolio

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store