
FAIR PLAN SECRETS: Why California's insurer of last resort is so secretive
Since the
LA fires
on January 7, much more attention has been put on the California FAIR Plan, the state's fire insurer of last resort. Once thought of as a small, rarely-used backstop, the plan is now one of the
largest
in the state. Yet, it's also one of the most secretive insurers in California, able to withhold more information than even the private companies that run it.
This may not have mattered much when the plan was small and needed little oversight. But new rules passed last September mean that anyone with property insurance will now pay to cover the FAIR plan's debts.
"The reason all of us should care is that we're now on the hook, all of us, in case the FAIR Plan runs out of money," said Dave Jones, California's Insurance Commissioner from 2011-2018.
The plan did run out of money and, on
February 11
, current Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara signed an order authorizing the California FAIR Plan to collect $1 billion from its member companies -- half of which can be passed on to ratepayers.
A CBS News California review of public records and data found:
Often misidentified as a "state-run" plan, the California FAIR Plan has only a loose connection to the government. It operates as an independent non-profit and is run by a "Governing Committee" mostly consisting of people from the insurance industry. In most years, the plan operates like any other by collecting premiums from customers and paying claims from its revenue and reserves. But, when times are good and the plan runs a surplus, the committee can decide to "disburse" some of those funds back to the member companies like in a stock dividend. If the plan runs out of money, it can request additional funds from its member companies in what's called an "assessment," as it did last month.
The last time the plan issued a disbursement was in 2017, right before the historic
Tubbs
and
Thomas
fires. At that time, the plan was still small and not yet a major player in fire insurance.
"The FAIR Plan used to be an insurance policy mostly in urban areas that would cover your mortgage," said Michael Wara, who researches climate and energy policy at Stanford University.
He said the original purpose was never to cover fire catastrophes but to cover inner city homes that had trouble finding coverage after the Watts riots in 1965. California is one of about 30 states nationwide that have FAIR plans. Each has its own rules and governing structure.
Sometime after 2017, said Wara, the FAIR Plan began to transform into something different.
"It's been changed into something that's much more like a normal insurance policy that will allow you to rebuild after a catastrophe," he said.
A spate of non-renewals by major insurers, including
State Farm
and
Farmers
, fueled the FAIR Plan's rapid growth. According to the latest data, the California FAIR Plan is the sixth largest in the state and is on track to grow even larger.
Just a few months before the LA Fires in January, Helen Meisel in the Pacific Palisades received a strange letter from State Farm, her home insurer. As she feared, it was a notice of non-renewal -- but only partially.
"Fortunately," the letter read, "State Farm is keeping your policy, but will exclude fire insurance."
Now she had two policies: The California FAIR Plan for fire and State Farm for everything else. She said the total cost was more than $6,000.
"I'm paying two policies," she said, "more than double what I was paying before."
Along with its unique status as the insurer of "last resort," the California FAIR Plan also enjoys protection from
Prop 103
, the main law governing California's notoriously strict insurance regulation. While most every other private insurer in the state must publish regular financial statements, as well as detailed justifications for its rate increases, the California FAIR Plan discloses only the rate filings. That means the details of how much money it has and how it spends it are effectively secret to the public unless the plan chooses to disclose.
Unlike similar plans around the country, such as the Florida Citizen's Plan, the California FAIR Plan's governing meetings and minutes are not public. The plan won't even reveal the names of the governing committee members.
"I'm a pretty well-known insurance consumer advocate," said Amy Bach, Executive Director of
United Policyholders
. "People say to me, Amy, who's on the FAIR Plan governing board? I can't find that information out. Like, it's not public."
Jones -- California's former insurance commissioner -- recalled that he tried to send a deputy to attend the FAIR Plan meetings. But when his deputy arrived, the FAIR Governing Committee went into a closed-door "executive session."
"He showed up, they convened the meeting, and then they went to executive session and left the meeting," said Jones.
Lara, the current insurance commissioner, is backing a
bill
that would add two representatives from the legislature to the committee. But it's not clear how much that would increase transparency if those members are excluded from any real decision-making just as Jones' representative was.
While the FAIR Plan posts some select
data and statistics online
, its board chooses what to disclose and when. Prior to the LA fires, the last time the California FAIR Plan disclosed significant financial information was before the California State Assembly Insurance Committee more than a year ago. President Victoria Roach verbally described the plan's cash flow and reinsurance structure -- leading Representative
Jim Wood to remark
, "If this were on Wall Street, I'm not sure you'd be able to get away with this."
The
latest FAIR Plan bylaws
seem designed to increase transparency on this front. The plan would be required to issue new reports that include details such as policy counts and total written premiums in distressed areas. However, this all resembles the data currently available on the FAIR Plan's website and fails to include any data about surplus cash or reinsurance.
Insurance companies take out their own insurance to help manage particularly large disasters such as the LA fires. In 2022, a
Department of Insurance audit
found that the California FAIR Plan carried far less reinsurance than comparable plans in other states. Experts told CBS News that this leaves the FAIR Plan significantly more exposed to big disasters.
"What that tells you is the FAIR plan is banking on the ability to assess," said Wara. "They're not charging the high-risk people enough, and the plan is to just assess on everybody else."
The department's audit had a similar conclusion: "The FAIR Plan believes that its reinsurance needs are much different than a traditional market insurer since it can assess its insurance company members to fund liquidity needs."
Prior to the latest rule changes, an assessment would have been a relatively private affair between the FAIR Plan and the insurance industry. But now, every ratepayer in the state is paying as well.
For Rex Frazier, a lobbyist for the insurance industry, a lot of this amounts to growing pains.
"Right now, this is a private organization that has come into prominence and is growing in an obviously haphazard way," said Frazier.
When asked whether he thought the public should be privy to its meetings and financial statements now that the public is on the hook, he replied, "You can understand how someone would have that opinion. But that's not the law today."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
California's Insurance Gap: Mercury Insurance Details What Homeowners Need to Know
Thousands of California Homeowners Are Underinsured LOS ANGELES, May 29, 2025 /PRNewswire-PRWeb/ -- The devastation caused by January's Pacific Palisades and Altadena wildfires served as powerful reminders of how crucial it is for homeowners to have adequate insurance coverage. In addition to the emotional toll of losing a home, the financial burden can be overwhelming — particularly for those who discover their coverage falls short. According to a recent report in the San Francisco Chronicle, a significant number of California policyholders are underinsured, meaning that they may not receive sufficient funds to rebuild a home comparable to the one they lost. Equally concerning is data from LendingTree, which reveals that of the nearly eight million residences in California, 806,600 are completely uninsured — that's 10.5% of all homeowners in the Golden State. And in some counties, such as Lake, Kings and Humboldt, for instance, the rate is even higher. "Being underinsured can turn a crisis into a financial disaster. Waiting until after a catastrophic event such as a wildfire to review your coverage is far too late," said Kelly Butler, VP and Chief Underwriting Officer at Mercury Insurance. "That's why it is essential to meet with your insurance agent at least once a year to ensure your policy reflects current replacement costs and risks." The issue of underinsurance in California is shaped by a combination of evolving market dynamics and environmental challenges. Rising construction costs, the growing threat of wildfires, and shifts in the insurance market all contribute to a complex landscape for homeowners and insurers alike. Here's a closer look at some of the key factors: Rising Insurance Costs: In wildfire prone areas, premiums have increased in response to heightened risk and construction/materials costs. This can place financial strain on homeowners, and these insureds are most likely to allow their coverage to lapse or to underinsure their properties to lower their premiums. Market Adjustments: Some insurance companies have scaled back their offerings in high-risk regions due to increased losses. As a result, some homeowners need to turn to alternatives such as the California FAIR Plan, which provides basic fire insurance coverage, when private options are unavailable. So, what was originally intended as a provider of last resort is now used by 4% of the state's homeowners, up 300% from 2018. Homeowners may need to supplement FAIR Plan policies with additional "wrap-around" policies for broader protection. Increased Wildfire Risk: The growing frequency and severity of wildfires in California have made it more difficult — and costlier — to insure homes in certain areas. This has impacted both insurance availability and affordability. Regulatory Constraints: Proposition 103, passed in 1988, requires insurers to base rates on historical losses. While designed to protect consumers by regulating how insurers set rates, it has also created challenges for insurers that need to adjust rates to account for evolving risks and rising rebuilding costs, which adds complexity to the current insurance landscape. Policy Type Matters: Understanding the difference between actual cash value and replacement cost policies is crucial. The former may not cover the full cost to rebuild, while the latter aims to replace what was lost in today's dollars, up to the policy's limits. What Can Homeowners Do? Reducing wildfire risk on your property remains one of the most effective strategies. Creating defensible space, hardening your home, and taking other fire-mitigation measures can help lower your insurance costs — and may even qualify you for discounts. But homeowners can't solve this issue alone. Broader efforts are also underway to improve the availability and affordability of insurance coverage in high-risk areas. "Fortunately, it's not all doom and gloom," added Butler. "The state is beginning to make meaningful changes. Last year, Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara introduced California's Sustainable Insurance Strategy, which supports more accurate pricing in wildfire-prone areas and aims to expand coverage options for homeowners who need it most." By staying informed, proactive, and working closely with their insurance providers, California homeowners can better protect their properties and financial futures — even in the face of growing environmental risks. About Mercury Insurance Headquartered in Los Angeles, Mercury Insurance (NYSE: MCY) is a multiple-line insurance carrier offering personal auto, homeowners, and renters insurance directly to consumers and through a network of independent agents in Arizona, California, Georgia, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Texas and Virginia, as well as auto insurance in Florida. Mercury also writes business owners, business auto, landlord, commercial multi-peril and mechanical protection insurance in various states. Since 1962, Mercury has provided customers with tremendous value for their insurance dollar by pairing ultra-competitive rates with excellent customer service, through nearly 4,100 employees and a network of more than 6,500 independent agents in 11 states. Mercury has earned an "A" rating from A.M. Best, as well as "Best Auto Insurance Company" designations from Forbes and For more information visit or follow the company on Twitter or Facebook. Contact: PCG – Shane Smith (424) 903-3665 (ssmith@ Media Contact Shane Smith, Mercury Insurance, (424) 903-3665, ssmith@ View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE Mercury Insurance Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Did insurers collude to force homeowners onto state insurance plan? What to know from two blockbuster lawsuits
The firestorms that swept through Pacific Palisades, Altadena and other communities Jan. 7 not only devastated thousands of homeowners but highlighted a giant problem: the growth of the state's insurer of last resort. The California FAIR Plan Assn. offers policies that cover less, but typically are expensive. Now, California home insurers are facing twin lawsuits filed by homeowners who accuse them of colluding over the last several years to force them into the plan in order to profit from the higher premiums while reducing their liabilities in the event of a catastrophe — just what the lawsuits allege happened after the fires. The result, according to one suit, is the insurers "collectively reaped a windfall worth billions of dollars." The Times spoke to both sides, as well as multiple experts to better understand the high-stakes litigation, which faces obstacles but could shake up California's home insurance industry. Who is being sued and exactly what do the lawsuits allege? The Los Angeles County Superior Court suits filed last month name more than 200 insurers and affiliates as defendants, including State Farm, Farmers and Mercury that account for about three quarters of the state's property and casualty insurance sales. The lawsuits accuse them of unfair competition and violations of the Cartwright Act, a state law that prohibits agreements to restrain trade, fix prices or reduce competition. The homeowners assert the insurers engaged in a "group boycott" to terminate policies in Pacific Palisades, Malibu, Altadena and other fire-prone neighborhoods in early 2023 and then refused to write new policies. That left the homeowners with no choice but to join the FAIR Plan, where they paid more but the policies are limited, including through a $3-million coverage cap on dwellings. Read more: Insurers seek to surcharge California homeowners for L.A. County fire costs How would the insurers benefit from such a scheme? The FAIR Plan was established by the Legislature in 1968 but is operated by the state's licensed home insurers that share in its profits and losses. By moving homeowners onto the plan, the insurers would profit from higher premiums, while being exposed to fewer losses due to its limited policies. The result was an effective rate increase without the insurers having to undergo a state review, the lawsuits allege. Why are there two lawsuits? One lawsuit is a proposed class action and seeks to have policyholders compensated for the alleged higher premiums they paid. The other seeks to compensate homeowners who experienced losses during the fires and then suffered further due to their alleged inadequate FAIR Plan coverage. Each lawsuit seeks treble damages. What do the lawsuits cite as evidence of collusion? The litigation claims that the collusion and boycott were carried out through meetings of the FAIR Plan's governing committee and subcommittees, as well as weekly meetings of the Personal Insurance Federation of California and the American Property Casualty Insurance Assn., or APCIA, two leading trade groups, among other mechanisms. However, the lawsuits do not offer any written documentation from these meetings. The lawsuits also note that last year, insurers won the right from Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara to surcharge their own residential and commercial policyholders if the FAIR Plan runs out of money — which it has since the fires. One of the lawsuits cites the new policy as evidence of the insurers' "determination to act collusively." APCIA issued a statement saying that it has a legal right to voice industry concerns to the government and that it "complies with all applicable antitrust laws." Read more: Palisades fire victims seek court order forcing FAIR Plan to turn over claims documents So how can the allegations be proved in court? Stephen Larson, a former federal judge whose firm Larson is one of the two representing the plaintiffs, said that the discovery process will be key. "We did a tremendous amount of due diligence prior to bringing this lawsuit, and we anticipate there will be requests for documents, there will be interrogatories [written questions answered under oath] and there will be depositions. We're going to be have the opportunity to depose those that we believe are responsible for this." What do insurers say about all this? Rex Frazier, president of the Personal Insurance Federation, said there was nothing collusive about insurers' behavior. Instead, it was a logical consequence of being unable to get adequate rate increases as costs and wildfire danger have increased. "What business, whether the insurance industry or any other business, can survive a highly inflationary cost structure without the ability to raise its prices? We've been predicting why the FAIR Plan will grow — we're not allowed to have meetings we've held for 30 years?" he said. Read more: Insurer of last resort kept growing. Then L.A. fire victims paid the price Will it be difficult to prove collusion? Yes, it will be a tall order, legal experts say. Donald Pepperman, a partner at Waymaker in Los Angeles who specializes in antitrust litigation, said a key defense probably will be that the insurers acted in their own economic self interest in dropping policyholders. "Why should they be forced to stay in a market that's not profitable when there are other markets in California where there's less disasters?" he asked, adding that without more evidence of collusion the lawsuit may not get far — and finding that will be difficult. "I don't know that they're going to be that unsophisticated, that in the FAIR Plan minutes of a meeting they're going to admit they conspired to pull out of markets or fixed prices." Tom Baker, a professor who specializes in insurance at the University of Pennsylvania's Penn Carey Law school, said the plaintiffs will need to show that they somehow acted in a more "extreme" manner than was supported by their actuarial data, which he agreed will be challenging — though he said the discovery process is a powerful tool. "The bright side of this lawsuit is that we're gonna get some information, but count me skeptical about whether they're gonna succeed, unless they can find some kind of smoking guns." Are there less nefarious reasons for insurers pulling back from the California market? Yes, there are alternative explanations. James Naughton, a former actuary and a professor at the University of Virginia's Darden School of Business, said that advances in data management have allowed insurers to collect more data than ever about the risks they face, with much of it the same across insurers. "What could appear to be collusion could also be companies just using the same data. If I'm an actuary at one company, it's not hard to be an actuary at another company. The information moves," he said. Naughton added that there also can be "soft collusion," a concept that refers to actors in a market trading information or having an understanding of their competitors' strategies, leading to similar decision-making. Read more: Consumer group sues insurance commissioner over Fair Plan assessments on state homeowners What do the plaintiff's attorneys say about all of this? "Do we expect to find a document from party A to party B, saying today we're going to have a meeting to discuss how we're going to collude with each other on avoiding risk and going to FAIR Plan agenda item? No, I don't expect we're going to find that," said Michael Bidart, with Shernoff Bidart Echeverria, the other plaintiffs' firm. "Rare is the case in any litigation where you have a document that provides the ultimate direct evidence." Instead, the attorneys said they will rely on accumulated evidence to show how the insurers allegedly conspired to drop policyholders in order to move them to the FAIR Plan for their own benefit. "So anything else we get on top of it is just icing on the cake," Bidart said. Sign up for our Wide Shot newsletter to get the latest entertainment business news, analysis and insights. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.


Los Angeles Times
a day ago
- Los Angeles Times
Did insurers collude to force homeowners onto state insurance plan? What to know from two blockbuster lawsuits
The firestorms that swept through Pacific Palisades, Altadena and other communities Jan. 7 not only devastated thousands of homeowners but highlighted a giant problem: the growth of the state's insurer of last resort. The California FAIR Plan Assn. offers policies that cover less, but typically are expensive. Now, California home insurers are facing twin lawsuits filed by homeowners who accuse them of colluding over the last several years to force them into the plan in order to profit from the higher premiums while reducing their liabilities in the event of a catastrophe — just what the lawsuits allege happened after the fires. The result, according to one suit, is the insurers 'collectively reaped a windfall worth billions of dollars.' The Times spoke to both sides, as well as multiple experts to better understand the high-stakes litigation, which faces obstacles but could shake up California's home insurance industry. Who is being sued and exactly what do the lawsuits allege? The Los Angeles County Superior Court suits filed last month name more than 200 insurers and affiliates as defendants, including State Farm, Farmers and Mercury that account for about three quarters of the state's property and casualty insurance sales. The lawsuits accuse them of unfair competition and violations of the Cartwright Act, a state law that prohibits agreements to restrain trade, fix prices or reduce competition. The homeowners assert the insurers engaged in a 'group boycott' to terminate policies in Pacific Palisades, Malibu, Altadena and other fire-prone neighborhoods in early 2023 and then refused to write new policies. That left the homeowners with no choice but to join the FAIR Plan, where they paid more but the policies are limited, including through a $3-million coverage cap on dwellings. How would the insurers benefit from such a scheme? The FAIR Plan was established by the Legislature in 1968 but is operated by the state's licensed home insurers that share in its profits and losses. By moving homeowners onto the plan, the insurers would profit from higher premiums, while being exposed to fewer losses due to its limited policies. The result was an effective rate increase without the insurers having to undergo a state review, the lawsuits allege. Why are there two lawsuits? One lawsuit is a proposed class action and seeks to have policyholders compensated for the alleged higher premiums they paid. The other seeks to compensate homeowners who experienced losses during the fires and then suffered further due to their alleged inadequate FAIR Plan coverage. Each lawsuit seeks treble damages. What do the lawsuits cite as evidence of collusion? The litigation claims that the collusion and boycott were carried out through meetings of the FAIR Plan's governing committee and subcommittees, as well as weekly meetings of the Personal Insurance Federation of California and the American Property Casualty Insurance Assn., or APCIA, two leading trade groups, among other mechanisms. However, the lawsuits do not offer any written documentation from these meetings. The lawsuits also note that last year, insurers won the right from Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara to surcharge their own residential and commercial policyholders if the FAIR Plan runs out of money — which it has since the fires. One of the lawsuits cites the new policy as evidence of the insurers' 'determination to act collusively.' APCIA issued a statement saying that it has a legal right to voice industry concerns to the government and that it 'complies with all applicable antitrust laws.' So how can the allegations be proved in court? Stephen Larson, a former federal judge whose firm Larson is one of the two representing the plaintiffs, said that the discovery process will be key. 'We did a tremendous amount of due diligence prior to bringing this lawsuit, and we anticipate there will be requests for documents, there will be interrogatories [written questions answered under oath] and there will be depositions. We're going to be have the opportunity to depose those that we believe are responsible for this.' What do insurers say about all this? Rex Frazier, president of the Personal Insurance Federation, said there was nothing collusive about insurers' behavior. Instead, it was a logical consequence of being unable to get adequate rate increases as costs and wildfire danger have increased. 'What business, whether the insurance industry or any other business, can survive a highly inflationary cost structure without the ability to raise its prices? We've been predicting why the FAIR Plan will grow — we're not allowed to have meetings we've held for 30 years?' he said. Will it be difficult to prove collusion? Yes, it will be a tall order, legal experts say. Donald Pepperman, a partner at Waymaker in Los Angeles who specializes in antitrust litigation, said a key defense probably will be that the insurers acted in their own economic self interest in dropping policyholders. 'Why should they be forced to stay in a market that's not profitable when there are other markets in California where there's less disasters?' he asked, adding that without more evidence of collusion the lawsuit may not get far — and finding that will be difficult. 'I don't know that they're going to be that unsophisticated, that in the FAIR Plan minutes of a meeting they're going to admit they conspired to pull out of markets or fixed prices.' Tom Baker, a professor who specializes in insurance at the University of Pennsylvania's Penn Carey Law school, said the plaintiffs will need to show that they somehow acted in a more 'extreme' manner than was supported by their actuarial data, which he agreed will be challenging — though he said the discovery process is a powerful tool. 'The bright side of this lawsuit is that we're gonna get some information, but count me skeptical about whether they're gonna succeed, unless they can find some kind of smoking guns.' Are there less nefarious reasons for insurers pulling back from the California market? Yes, there are alternative explanations. James Naughton, a former actuary and a professor at the University of Virginia's Darden School of Business, said that advances in data management have allowed insurers to collect more data than ever about the risks they face, with much of it the same across insurers. 'What could appear to be collusion could also be companies just using the same data. If I'm an actuary at one company, it's not hard to be an actuary at another company. The information moves,' he said. Naughton added that there also can be 'soft collusion,' a concept that refers to actors in a market trading information or having an understanding of their competitors' strategies, leading to similar decision-making. What do the plaintiff's attorneys say about all of this? 'Do we expect to find a document from party A to party B, saying today we're going to have a meeting to discuss how we're going to collude with each other on avoiding risk and going to FAIR Plan agenda item? No, I don't expect we're going to find that,' said Michael Bidart, with Shernoff Bidart Echeverria, the other plaintiffs' firm. 'Rare is the case in any litigation where you have a document that provides the ultimate direct evidence.' Instead, the attorneys said they will rely on accumulated evidence to show how the insurers allegedly conspired to drop policyholders in order to move them to the FAIR Plan for their own benefit. 'So anything else we get on top of it is just icing on the cake,' Bidart said.