Insurers seek to surcharge California homeowners for LA County fire costs
Insurers are seeking to charge homeowners across California for some of the costs of the catastrophic Los Angeles County fires the companies were burdened with when the state's insurer of last resort needed a bailout.
The California FAIR Plan Association, with the approval of state Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, assessed its member carriers $1 billion on Feb. 11 when the plan was swamped with thousands of claims after the Jan. 7 fires in Pacific Palisades, Altadena and Sylmar.
The plan, operated and backstopped by the state's licensed home insurers, said it has made $2.75 billion in claims payments as of Friday and expects its costs for the fires will total $4 billion, which it could not cover with its limited surplus and reinsurance funds.
Now, under a policy Lara put in place last year that is being challenged in court, insurers are filing applications with the state Department of Insurance seeking to surcharge their policyholders statewide for half the costs of that assessment.
That means even if a person lives hundreds of miles away from the fires, they could be forced to help pay their insurers' costs of the assessment — on top of annual premiums that have risen hundreds or even thousands of dollars for some homeowners as many insurers have sharply raised rates.
So far at least 10 home insurers and their affiliates have filed applications for surcharges, with the fees ranging from about $6 or less for some rental policyholders, $20 or $30 for condo owners and typically $40 to $60 for a standard homeowners policy, though some are less or somewhat more.
The insurers are seeking to apply the charges starting this year, with some spreading the charges over two annual billing cycles.
Among the insurers that have filed applications are affiliates of AAA and Mercury, two of the largest home insurers in the state, and carriers with smaller market share such as Amica and Western Mutual. Lara has final say about whether to allow the surcharges to go through.
'This modest, temporary cost recovery — just a few dollars a month for most policyholders — is critical to preventing a catastrophic collapse of California's insurance market,' said Denni Ritter, vice president for state government relations for the American Property Casualty Insurance Association trade group.
Hilary McLean, a spokesperson for the FAIR Plan, said it has no role in determining how its member carriers decide to pay for assessments.
While many of the state's licensed home insurers have yet to file applications, most future surcharges could be in a similar range because the FAIR Plan assessed its member carriers based on their share of California's home insurance market.
'That was the ballpark estimate,' said Rex Frazier, president of the Personal Insurance Federation of California, which represents major property and casualty insurers.
But Carmen Balber, executive director of Consumer Watchdog, a Los Angeles-based group that filed the suit to stop the surcharges, said that because the application figures are only averages, homeowners with larger policies could end up paying surcharges totaling hundreds of dollars.
'The average doesn't fully represent the impact on many homeowners, and $50 is not negligible for Californians who have already seen massive home insurance premium increases,' she said, adding that this could be the 'tip of the iceberg' if the FAIR Plan further assesses its member carriers.
Michael Soller, a spokesperson for Lara, said regulators are reviewing the applications to ensure they follow the rules established by the department regarding which policyholders are being charged, for how much and for what duration. Insurers must break down the charges by their different lines of insurance.
'We also want to understand each insurer's process to prevent overcollection. It's about fairness, transparency and holding insurance companies within legal bounds,' he said.
The FAIR Plan got into financial trouble as insurers fled the state's home insurance market, which was hit with a series of devastating fires even before this year, including the 2018 blaze that nearly wiped out the town of Paradise in Northern California.
A Times analysis found that in the Palisades and Eaton fire zones, the FAIR Plan's rolls shot up last year a combined 47%. From 2020 to 2024, the number of homes in both areas on the plan nearly doubled from 14,272 to 28,440.
Lara's surcharge policy was instituted as part of his Sustainable Insurance Strategy to make the troubled homeowners market more attractive to insurers. It allows insurers to recoup from their policyholders up to half of any FAIR Plan assessment that totals up to $1 billion for residential losses and $1 billion for commercial losses. Any assessments that exceed those limits can be completely passed on to policyholders. Residential customers are not responsible for commercial losses.
However, an additional assessment may not be necessary, according to a Feb. 11 letter sent by the plan to Lara seeking permission for the current assessment on its member carriers.
The plan said it was running out of money to pay claims after using up $510 million in unallocated funds and drawing money from its $5.78-billion reinsurance program, acquired by the insurer to spread its risk from fires and other catastrophic events. However, it estimated it would have $306 million in cash after the assessments of its members as of June 30.
Frazier said that he had 'no reason to believe' there would be another FAIR Plan assessment related to the Jan. 7 fires, but that another major blaze this year could change the calculus. 'I think the worry is what happens next November or December,' he said.
McLean said the FAIR Plan 'cannot speculate on losses associated with future disasters.'
A bill working its way through the Legislature would authorize the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank to issue bonds on behalf of the FAIR Plan to help pay its claims and increase its liquidity.
Consumer Watchdog, which called Lara's decision last year to provide for insurer surcharges an 'industry bailout,' sued Lara in April in Los Angeles County Superior Court claiming that nothing in the 1968 statute that created the Fair Plan contemplated such an assessment on policyholders. It also alleged Lara violated state law by approving the assessment policy via 'administrative fiat' rather through the proper rulemaking procedure.
A spokesman for Lara at the time said the lawsuit 'serves to undermine our efforts to restore competition to all areas of our state, so people can get off the Fair Plan and back to the regular market.' The American Property Casualty Insurance Association called it a 'reckless and self-serving stunt.'
The state's 10 largest home insurers also were sued last month by a group of Jan. 7 fire victims who allege the companies colluded to drop policyholders and force them into the FAIR Plan, where they would pay more for less coverage. That had the effect of reducing the insurers' liabilities after the fires due to the plan's losses.
The American Property Casualty Insurance Association called the lawsuit 'meritless.'
___
© 2025 Los Angeles Times.
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Lack of documentation can be fatal when claiming expenses on taxes
One of the practical pieces of tax advice that I continuously dole out to clients, friends and family members each year is the critical importance of keeping receipts for any deductions or credits you plan to claim on your tax return. While this goes without saying for obvious items such as charitable donations and eligible medical expenses, it's perhaps even more important to keep receipts of other expenses, such as employment or business expenses, that you plan to deduct on your return to lower your final tax bill. Depending on your tax bracket, those receipts can be worth more than 50 cents on the dollar. Consider the self-employed, high-income earning Vancouver-based IT consultant who spent $1,000 in airfare to visit a client in 2025. At her top marginal tax rate of 53.5 per cent, hanging on to that receipt could save her $535 in real hard cash taxes that she otherwise would have to remit to the Canada Revenue Agency by April 30, 2026. That's why I encourage anyone who claims employment or business expenses to carefully track them and keep those receipts. That can be done 'old school,' by physically hanging on to the relevant receipts and filing them in a paper folder for tax season. Alternatively, many of us are now in the habit of taking a picture of the receipt (or scanning it) and saving the receipts in an online 'tax folder', by year, stored virtually in the cloud, so that these receipts are all together in one place come tax time. If you incur substantial business or employment expenses each year, I would go so far as to recommend a separate credit card so that you can easily segregate your work expenses from your personal expenses, especially when it comes to some retail purchases that could be either. For example, was that recent Staples purchase tax-deductible office supplies or a large back-to-school stock-up for the kids? The importance of keeping receipts to justify your expenses came up yet again in a recent decision of the Federal Court of Appeal released late last month. The issue before the appellate court was whether the lower Tax Court erred in disallowing additional deductions for motor vehicle expenses incurred by the taxpayer in connection with his employment. While it was clear that the taxpayer travelled for work and qualified for various employment expense deductions permitted under the Income Tax Act, the Tax Court concluded that the deductions should not be allowed because the taxpayer did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate the amount that should be deductible. I first wrote about this case last year, so before reviewing the decision of the appellate court, here's a brief summary of the facts. The taxpayer was appealing reassessments of his 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 taxation years in which the CRA reduced or denied certain expenses claimed in each of those years. The taxpayer, a visiting registered nurse, was simultaneously employed by four separate employers in 2015 and three separate employers in 2016, 2017 and 2018. His job was to provide nursing services to individuals in their own homes or in a retirement or nursing home. During the tax years under review, he provided nursing services six days one week and four days the next week on a rotating basis. Each week included two or three seven-hour night shifts during which he was on standby for patients who required urgent care. The night before each workday, his employers would provide a schedule of the patients he was to visit the following day. The taxpayer estimated he visited between 10 and 30 patients during a day shift, and he worked an average of 40 to 45 hours per week, plus the two to three seven-hour night shifts. Each employer paid the taxpayer a fixed amount for each patient visit, regardless of the nursing services provided. He travelled daily from his south-central Ontario community to visit patients in the Greater Toronto Area. The taxpayer deducted various automobile expenses in each year, which were denied. Under the Income Tax Act, to be able to deduct vehicle expenses as an employee, you must normally be required to work away from your employer's place of business or in different places, and you must be required to pay your own automobile expenses, as certified on Form T2200, Declaration of Conditions of Employment. In addition, you must not be the recipient of a 'non-taxable' allowance for motor vehicle expenses. An allowance is considered non-taxable when it is solely based on a 'reasonable' per-kilometre rate. The taxpayer may have been entitled to claim some of these as valid expenses, but he was unable to supply any evidence to back up the expenses he had claimed. He testified he had previously provided the records to the CRA by registered mail, but the CRA never received them, and he was unable to provide any backup documentation in court. This proved to be fatal for the taxpayer's claim in Tax Court. 'Maintaining books and records is an ongoing obligation in a self-assessing system and the taxpayer's failure to do so … made it impossible for him to meet the evidentiary burden … to demolish the (CRA's) assumptions' about the denied expenses,' the lower court judge wrote, citing a prior case. The taxpayer appealed the Tax Court's decision to the Federal Court of Appeal, which heard the case at the end of May. The three-judge panel of the appellate court considered whether the taxpayer had provided sufficient evidence as to the amount of his expenses to justify a deduction on his return. The taxpayer tried to argue that, notwithstanding having any receipts or backup documentation, he was found to be a 'credible witness' by the Tax Court judge, and thus his testimony as to the amount of expenses he had incurred and claimed on his tax returns should simply be believed. The appellate court disagreed, writing, 'it was not a matter of disbelieving him; it was a matter of the (taxpayer) failing to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the amounts claimed were in fact deductible.' How spousal RRSPs can reduce taxes without getting you in trouble Have you made a mistake or need to change your tax return? Here's how Bottom line – you could be the most honest, believable and trustworthy taxpayer, with a perfect record of tax compliance stretching back decades. But, if you are unable to back up your tax deductions with hard evidence, you are unlikely to be successful in the face of a CRA review. Jamie Golombek, FCPA, FCA, CFP, CLU, TEP, is the managing director, Tax & Estate Planning with CIBC Private Wealth in Toronto. If you liked this story, in the FP Investor newsletter.
Boston Globe
22 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Stablecoin bigwig Circle set to make its debut on the New York Stock Exchange
Interest in Circle's initial public offering is high. The company's underwriters priced the offering at $31 per share Wednesday, up from an expected price of $27 to $28. The number of shares being sold was raised to 34 million from 32 million. Circle will trade on the NYSE under the symbol 'CRCL.' The shares had not opened for trading as of midday. A view outside the New York Stock Exchange on June 5. Richard Drew/Associated Press Advertisement The dominant player in the stablecoin field is El Salvador-based Tether, which has the stablecoin known as USDT that currently has about $150 billion in circulation. USDC is the second most popular stablecoin market cap, with about $60 billion in circulation. Circle said in a regulatory filing that USDC has been used for more than '$25 trillion in onchain transactions' since its launch in 2018. Revenue-wise the company has seen tremendous growth, going from just $15 million in 2020 to $1.7 billion in 2024. Stablecoin issuers make profits by collecting the interest on the assets they hold in reserve to back their stablecoins. Circle said USDC is backed by 'cash, short-dated US Treasuries and overnight US Treasury repurchase agreements with leading global banks.' Advertisement Circle's IPO comes amid a push by the Trump administration and the crypto industry to pass legislation that would regulate how stablecoin issuers operate in the US. A Senate bill There is also growing competition in the stablecoin field. A crypto enterprise partly owned by the Trump family just launched its own stablecoin, USD1. Circle said its long track record and values – the company says its mission statement is 'to raise global economic prosperity through the frictionless exchange of value' – will help it stand apart in the field.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Udinese on verge of takeover by American firm Guggenheim Partners
A sale of Serie A club Udinese to a US-based investment firm is on the verge of being completed, and could go through by the end of the week according to reports from various outlets in Italy. According to the likes of ANSA and Sky Sport Italia, Udinese are close to being sold to the US-based investment firm Guggenheim Partners. The sale is expected to be closed in Luxembourg on Friday. Advertisement If completed, the sale will bring an end to the Pozzo family's time in charge of the club, which has lasted for 39 years. Udinese sale to Guggenheim Partners expected by Friday UDINE, ITALY – FEBRUARY 26: A corner flag prior to the start of the Serie A match between Udinese Calcio and Spezia Calcio at the Dacia Arena on February 26, 2023 in Udine, Italy. (Photo by) According to updates from Sky Sport Italia, Guggenheim Partners could formally complete their takeover of Udinese by Friday. A preliminary agreement was reportedly signed in April for a rumoured figure of €180m. Sky adds that there is still a possibility that the Pozzo family remain involved with a minority stake in the club moving forwards. Their involvement, or possible departure from the club is expected to be confirmed once the takeover goes through. Advertisement Guggenheim Partners was founded in 1999 in partnership with the Guggenheim family, and has been run by CEO Mark Walter since the year 2000. It is estimated that the firm manages over €349 billion in assets. WASHINGTON, DC – APRIL 07: Los Angeles Dodgers Owner and Chairman Mark Walter (C), accompanied by U.S. President Donald Trump (R), speaks as Trump hosts the 2024 World Series champions in the East Room of the White House on April 07, 2025 in Washington, DC. The Los Angeles Dodgers defeated the New York Yankees with a 7-6 victory in Game 5. (Photo by) Walter and Guggenheim Partners are the sole owners of MLB team the Los Angeles Dodgers, and also own stakes in NBA outfit the Los Angeles Lakers and the Los Angeles Sparks of the WNBA. Walter and Guggenheim Partners also own just over 12% of BlueCo, the holding company which owns Premier League side Chelsea and Ligue 1 outfit Strasbourg. Walter is listed as a Chelsea director, but is not involved in the day-to-day running of the club.
