Insurers colluded to limit coverage in California areas at high risk for wildfires, lawsuits allege
Sacramento
— Two lawsuits filed in Los Angeles allege major home insurance companies have colluded to limit coverage in California communities at high risk for wildfires and force homeowners onto
the state's last-resort insurance plan
that offers basic coverage and high premiums.
Insurers,
including State Farm and 24 other companies
that hold 75% of California's home insurance market, were part of an "illegal scheme" in violation of California's antitrust and unfair competition laws, according to one of the lawsuits, filed last week.
The lawsuit said the companies worked together in 2023 to "suddenly and simultaneously" drop coverage or halt writing new policies in fire-prone areas, including in neighborhoods like Pacific Palisades and Altadena that were leveled in the January wildfires that destroyed nearly 17,000 structures and killed at least 30 people. That's forced hundreds of homeowners onto the FAIR Plan that offers limited coverage capping at $3 million, leaving them underinsured and now struggling to rebuild after the fires, says the lawsuit filed by a group of homeowners who lost their houses in the L.A. fires.
The other lawsuit includes all policyholders who obtained the FAIR Plan after January 2023, when the conspiracy allegedly began, the suit says.
"Insurance is a product that homeowners hope never to need, but rely on for peace of mind in normal times and for critical help rebuilding after a catastrophe," Michael J. Bidart, who represents the homeowners, said in a statement. "The complaints allege that, by colluding to push plaintiffs and so many like them to the FAIR Plan, the defendants have reaped the benefits of high premiums while depriving homeowners of coverage that they were ready, willing, and able to purchase to ensure that they could recover after a disaster like January's wildfires."
The lawsuits come as California is struggling with an ongoing insurance crisis, where companies are boosting rates, limiting coverage or pulling out completely from regions susceptible to wildfires and other natural disasters. In 2023, several major insurance companies either paused or restricted new business in the state, saying they can't truly price the risk on properties as wildfires become more common and destructive due to
climate change
.
The American Property Casualty Insurance Association, the largest national trade association representing home, auto and business insurers, said it complies with the state's antitrust laws and monitors its members to ensure they do the same.
"These suits defy logic, advance meritless claims, and we are going to focus on solving the challenges in the insurance market in California," said Stef Zielezienski, the group's chief legal officer.
The state Department of Insurance said it isn't involved in the suits but said its focus is on protecting consumers.
"Californians deserve a system that works - one where decisions are made openly, rates reflect real risk, and no one is left without options," department spokesperson Gabriel Sanchez said in a statement.
State Farm, the largest home insurer in California with roughly a million policies, didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.
The FAIR Plan is an insurance pool that all the major private insurers pay into. The plan issues policies to people who can't get private insurance because their properties are deemed too risky to insure. The plan, with high premiums and basic coverage, is designed as a temporary option until homeowners can find permanent coverage, but more Californians are relying on it than ever. There were more than 555,000 home policies on the FAIR Plan as of March, more than double the number in 2020.
The complaints also allege that insurers were pushing policyholders onto the FAIR Plan because companies wouldn't have to shoulder all financial responsibility to sustain the plan. When the state's top insurance regulator in February ordered insurers to provide $1 billion to the FAIR Plan to help it pay out claims related to the L.A. wildfires, he allowed for half of the cost to be recouped from policyholders statewide. Another lawsuit was filed last week to block the cost-shifting regulation.
California has been in the process of implementing various new regulations to give insurers more latitude to raise premiums in exchange for issuing more policies in high-risk areas. That includes regulations allowing insurers to consider climate change when setting their prices and allowing them to pass on the costs of reinsurance to California consumers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
California State Assembly Approves Bill Pausing Tax Hike on Legal Cannabis Retailers
California State Assembly Approves Bill Pausing Tax Hike on Legal Cannabis Retailers originally appeared on L.A. Mag. The California State Assembly unanimously voted on Monday to halt a slated 25% tax increase on the cannabis industry from going into effect on July a 74-0 vote, the Assembly approved AB564 by Asm. Matt Haney (D-San Francisco). The bill would prevent the retail excise tax from increasing to 19% from its current 15%."If we continue to pile on more taxes and fees onto our struggling small cannabis businesses, California's cannabis culture is under serious threat of extinction," Haney said in a to SFGATE, taxable cannabis sales in California amounted to $1.088 billion in 2025's first quarter, the lowest in five years. The figure also represents an 11% drop compared to the same quarter in 2024, marking the largest decline in legal cannabis sales in state are responsible for paying the tax regardless of consumer sales. Haney attributes the steady growth of cannabis sales in other states, such as Colorado and Michigan, to lower taxes and fewer barriers for businesses and consumers. "If we want to support our cannabis industry that drives millions of visitors to California every year, adding more costs makes absolutely no sense," said Haney."Nearly a decade after Californians overwhelmingly approved cannabis legalization, the industry is struggling under the crushing weight of a 15% excise tax,' said Caren Woodson, president of the California Cannabis Industry Association. 'Any increase, particularly a 25% increase, would not only be bad public policy, but devastating to operators already on the brink.'In 2016, voters passed Proposition 64 to legalize the possession, cultivation and sale of cannabis for recreational use with an initial retail excise tax of 15%.A 2022 law eliminated California's cultivation tax, making the excise tax adjustable to generate equivalent revenue. The new bill would eliminate the law's requirement to adjust the excise tax will go to the State Senate for consideration. This story was originally reported by L.A. Mag on Jun 4, 2025, where it first appeared.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Subnational Diplomacy in California: Economic Cooperation or Security Risk?
Since before Ronald Reagans time as governor, Californians have considered their rich and bountiful home something to be something of a "nation-state." Its a phrase Gov. Gavin Newsom has employed repeatedly - and a description he seems to have taken literally: California has fostered its own diplomatic relationship with China for years. The stated rationale is the need for energy and economic collaboration. But some critics believe that Chinas own motivations are not so high-minded. One such critic, Brigham McCown, a scholar from the Hudson Institute, fears that the relationship will lead to Californians becoming "unwitting instruments in Chinas propaganda efforts." The subnational diplomatic ties between California and China are well established. A 2014 report details Californias longstanding work with China in the energy sector. But they are not without controversy, particularly in recent years. In 2023, Newsom was criticized for "cozying up to" the CCP on his 2023 trip to China, during which he signed five memoranda of understanding (MOUs) regarding climate change. MOUs are nonbinding agreements between a state and a country, and California currently shares 17 with China, a much higher number than it shares with most other countries. For reference, the next comparable numbers are the 12 MOUs California shares with Mexico and the nine it shares with Japan. Besides those countries, Californias MOUs per country hover around the one-to-five range. While it is difficult to obtain the exact numbers, Ryan Scoville, a professor of law at Marquette University, compiled a list of U.S. state commitments with foreign governments, including MOUs, and found that California leads with at least 94 agreements, with Maryland coming in second place with 68. There is evidence for a subversive type of Chinese influence in California as well. The late Dianne Feinstein, the longest-serving female senator in history and a key figure in Californian politics, made headlines after it was revealed that her driver was a Chinese spy. California Rep. Eric Swalwell was embarrassed by revelations that a Chinese operative had been targeting him and working on his campaign. Meanwhile, several California universities have received scrutiny for being the beneficiaries of large donations from CCP-linked organizations. Most recently, California and the federal government have been embroiled in a lawsuit over President Trumps tariffs. The lawsuit "argues that President Trump lacks the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs against Mexico, China, and Canada or create an across-the-board 10% tariff." The California governors official website notes that "Californias economy and workers rely heavily on this trade activity, particularly with Mexico, Canada, and China - our top 3 trade partners. Over 40% of California imports come from these countries, totaling $203 billion of the more than $491 billion in goods imported by California in 2024." Though state leaders are insistent that their diplomatic efforts are for the good of Californians, scholars remain divided over whether such diplomacy is necessary, or if it creates a national security threat. Does Subnational Diplomacy Undermine U.S. Policy? Yuichiro Kakutani, a policy advisor at the China and Indo-Pacific Asian Studies Center at the Heritage Foundation, told RCP, "Widespread malign Chinese influence in California presents a concrete national security risk to the United States." Kakutani explained that the CCP is more dangerous to engage with than other countries since it "has proven adept at manipulating state-level officials," and listed several examples, including Chinas efforts to influence California elections and UC Berkleys tech deal that gave the Chinese access to U.S. research. Brigham McCown, a senior fellow and director of the Initiative on American Energy Security at the Hudson Institute, another conservative think tank, offered a similar, though more nuanced, perspective to RCP. "While Californias activities may not directly undermine an administrations agenda in a legal sense, its actions can complicate Americas diplomatic posture, especially when unity is vital to facing strategic challenges," McCown said. McCown explained that not only has China learned how to manipulate politicians, but it also has a long history of discreetly "exploiting internal divisions" among Americans. "Californians should be cautious not to become unwitting instruments in Chinas propaganda efforts," he warned. McCown also touched on the tariff lawsuit, which has been ruled in favor of California, though an appeals court paused the decision, allowing the tariffs to remain in effect. He explained that the case is particularly relevant as it dictates the boundaries of state and federal authority. "These types of cases raise an important constitutional standing issue which is: 'Who has standing to challenge federal decisions in matters of foreign policy?" McCown said. McCown admitted that California may have ground to oppose the tariffs on an economic level, but that it does not have the authority to rise against the federal government on the matter. He explained, "While states may object to the economic consequences of federal action, under our federal system, states must defer to the national government in areas where the Constitution clearly delegates authority - particularly foreign commerce and international relations." The Benefits to California Not every scholar sees a problem. Kal Raustiala, the director of the UCLA Ronald W. Burkle Center for International Relations and a professor of comparative and international law at UCLA Law School, believes that subnational diplomacy is vital for Californias flourishing. "In our system the federal government takes the lead on foreign affairs. But that doesnt mean that states have no role," Raustiala said. As long as states are not actively contradicting or undermining federal foreign policy, Raustiala adds that the federal government has no real reason to intervene. "As a nation known for liberty and freedom, I think sometimes having multiple voices and opinions is good," he said. "I think other nations around the world understand that we are a big, varied nation with many views on key issues." In addressing the tariff lawsuit, Raustiala stated that California is both protecting its own people and its foreign interests. "California is the most economically dynamic state in the union," he told RCP. "We are big traders, big exporters, and have big, active ports. Trade is important, and California is seeking to ensure that trade continues to bring prosperity - prosperity that allows California to be a major net donor to the federal government year after year." Madelynn McLaughlin is an intern at RealClearPolitics. She graduated from Liberty University in 2025 with a degree in Government: Politics and Policy.
Newsweek
2 days ago
- Newsweek
Ten Activities That State Farm Says Are Too Risky to Insure
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Following State Farm's recent rate hike requests in California, policyholders in the state can expect higher premiums when their policies are renewed in 2025 and 2026—that is, if they are lucky enough not to be dropped by the carrier under its new underwriting guidelines. According to documents filed earlier this year, first reported on by the San Francisco Chronicle, State Farm requested a 39 percent rate increase for its Personal Liability Umbrella Program in the state, which provides policyholders with extra protection beyond a basic personal liability policy. It also created a new list of activities and conditions which are considered "unacceptable" for the carrier to insure, as the risk would be too high to take on. Newsweek reached out to State Farm for comment via email on Tuesday. Why It Matters State Farm has been among several major insurers in California that have cut coverage across the state in recent years, citing rising costs and growing catastrophe exposure. When they have not stopped renewing policies or accepting new ones, they have instead asked for dramatic rate increases, challenging strict state regulations that have kept premiums artificially low for years. The company is currently seeking rate hikes for its homeowners' policies as well as for its umbrella liability policies, citing that more frequent accidents in recent years have been spiking medical bills and increasing costs for the company. California regulators face a difficult dilemma: either they approve of drastic rate hikes such as the ones requested by State Farm, or they risk facing shrinking availability for their residents, an issue that has already laid bare the fragility of the Golden State's home insurance market. What To Know State Farm's Personal Liability Umbrella Program offers a minimum of $1 million to policyholders for costs arising from a wide range of situations—from medical bills triggered by an injury in the home or a car accident, to attorney's fees for defamation lawsuits or cases of libel and slander. According to the document filed by State Farm in January, existing customers can renew their maximum limit of liability for no more than $10 million, with the exception of those who already have limits above $10 million, who can maintain them. The carrier, which is the biggest home insurer in California, blocked applications to the program in late May 2023 with "no exceptions," so the new guidelines about who can be insured by the carrier and who cannot apply to renewals only. While some descriptions of "unacceptable" behaviors detailed in the filing are expected, for example, a person who has had a major conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs won't be eligible for the program, others are more outlandish. Here are some of the most unusual behaviors and conditions that are too risky to be insured under State Farm's California Personal Liability Umbrella Program: Providing child care services where more than six children are cared for Being a person with high visibility, including professional entertainers, athletes, coaches, political office holders, broadcasters, authors, or columnists who have received unfavorable publicity via any communication avenue Owning property outside of the continental U.S., including in Hawaii and Alaska Having hog breeding operations on a farm Having a commercial dog kennel operation on a farm Having children's activities in a farm, such as corn mazes, haunted barns, hayrides, and similar activities, for a fee Spraying or dusting crops with aerial products as a policyholder Allowing public access for Pick-Your-Own operations on farmland Co-owning a farm with people who are not their relatives Offering guided hunting, lodging for hunters, or exotic animal hunting with dedicated employees on a farm People navigate one of the world's largest corn mazes at Cool Patch Pumpkins in Dixon, California, on October 17, 2024. People navigate one of the world's largest corn mazes at Cool Patch Pumpkins in Dixon, California, on October 17, 2024. JOSH EDELSON/AFP via Getty Images Janet Ruiz, a spokesperson for the Insurance Information Institute (or Triple-I) told the San Francisco Chronicle that it is normal for carriers to write highly specific underwriting guidelines and add new "unacceptable" conditions over time. What People Are Saying State Farm justified its request to increase rates for the Personal Liability Umbrella Program, citing that "personal liability costs have risen dramatically across the industry due to more accidents, escalating medical bills and larger legal settlements." What Happens Next Californians who are already covered by State Farm's Personal Liability Umbrella Program could be disqualified under the new underwriting guidelines when their policies are renewed. They are also likely to face higher premiums. If approved, State Farm's requested 39 percent hike on its Personal Liability Umbrella Program policies would be effective as of August 1, 2025. The increase would come on top of a 29 percent hike that has been in force since March.
