Latest news with #FairAccesstoInsuranceRequirements
New York Post
3 days ago
- Politics
- New York Post
Greedy landlords — not Bronx residents — were really to blame for the fires that ravaged NYC in the 70s and 80s: New book
In the early hours of an April morning in 1975, New York landlord Imre Oberlander and his associate, Yishai Webber, donned disguises — wigs and blackface — and set out in their car from Williamsburg, Brooklyn. They planned to burn down one of the six buildings Oberlander owned, but their illicit efforts were thwarted when a police officer pulled them over for a broken taillight, only to find firebombs in their car. Both men were promptly arrested. 'Oberlander became one of the first landlords charged in connection with the decade's epidemic of arson,' writes historian Bench Ansfield in 'Born in Flames – The Business of Arson and the Remaking of the American City'(W.W. Norton). Advertisement 5 Building fires were common in the 70s and 80s in NYC, especially in the Bronx (pictured). The book disputes the long-held notion that tenants were responsible for many of the notorious fires that burned in NYC in the '70s and '80s, many of them in The Bronx. Instead, Ansfield places the blame on flawed and inadequate legislation and greedy landlords. After the protests and civil unrest in New York City in the 1960s, many smaller landlords had cut their losses in areas like The Bronx to seek new opportunities in the suburbs, leaving large amounts of cheap property waiting to be snapped up. Advertisement Eager to breathe life back into the area, a new federal and state initiative, the Fair Access to Insurance Requirements (FAIR), was launched in 1968 to encourage new investment by providing a state-backed safety net for property owners who could not obtain insurance in the standard market. The policy aimed to rectify inequalities, but Ansfield exposes how the policy instead deepened them, leading to widespread displacement and housing insecurity that continues to shape urban landscapes today. FAIR was fundamentally flawed. While it ensured new owners and tenants could get state-backed insurance for properties, it valued buildings at much higher sums than their actual market value, leading, inevitably, to corrupt landlords exploiting the policy. That was what happened with the building at 1895 Belmont Ave. Advertisement 5 They were such a regular occurrence that 'fire-watching' was a popular pastime. The bank valued it at just $5,000, but it was covered for $250,000 by insurance. Inevitably, it was targeted by its unscrupulous landlord. On Aug. 29, 1976, Carmine Lanni, the owner of the building and a landlord who specialized in buying run-down buildings, hired handyman Popo Vega to torch the place. That night, Vega hauled a five-gallon container of gasoline up to a vacant apartment on the fifth floor, dousing the unit with the fuel. When he tried to ignite it, the build-up of fumes resulted in a huge explosion instead. Advertisement Vega escaped, and, remarkably, nobody died. But some of the 17 families living in the building witnessed him doing it and reported him to the police. Soon after, Vega was arrested. He accepted a reduced sentence on the condition that he wear a wire when he next met with Lanni. 5 A new book examines the arson of the era and puts the blame on landlords, not residents. It wasn't long before Lanni had another job for Vega, asking him to burn down 2025 Valentine Ave., a building he had bought for just $7,000 but was now worth $100,000 if the insurance paid out. When police heard the conversation, Lanni was arrested and sentenced to 15 years in prison. Evidence also revealed that Lanni was one of six landlords who ran an arson-for-hire business out of a Bronx storefront directly responsible for 17 fires in the area. Landlords, keen to insulate themselves from prosecution, routinely sought out young men or boys of color who lived near the buildings to do their dirty work, paying them to carry out the attacks. 'It was exceedingly difficult to incriminate anyone but the person who struck the match,' adds Ansfield. 5 The Fair Access to Insurance Requirements (FAIR) made obtaining insurance easier — but it also overvalued buildings and made them a target for arson and insurance fraud. The trend also had the effect of deepening the impoverishment in The Bronx. 'To be a young person in The Bronx was to be shut off from most socially sanctioned means of earning money,' says Ansfield. 'For the young torches who made up the rank and file of the arson industry, the money they could scrape together burning buildings was a significant enticement.' Advertisement That, argues Ansfield, is the real reason Black and Brown tenants were blamed for the arson wave, not just in New York but across the country. 'All these decades later, the vague impression that Bronxites burned down their own borough endures,' he writes. 'Yet the evidence is unequivocal: the hand that torched The Bronx and scores of other cities was that of a landlord impelled by the market and guided by the state.' 5 A cartoon that ran in The Post in 1980 portrayed the issue. Advertisement More worrying, argues Ansfield, is that the inequality that fuelled the fires in the 1970s hasn't gone away. 'The wave of landlord arson has receded,' he says. 'Yet its source – the lethal alchemy of race and capitalism – endures.'
Yahoo
17-04-2025
- General
- Yahoo
A California family is suing insurers over denied wildfire claim. Here's how to deal with an insurance dispute
Anne Yates and Patrick Proctor's 13-acre property in Butte County, California survived the devastating Park Fire, which scorched parts of Butte and Tehama counties in July 2024. But when the couple returned to their Cohasset Road home, they realized their house didn't emerge completely unscathed. Ash, smoke and soot had seeped inside the house, leaving behind what Yates and Proctor's lawsuit alleges are toxic residues. Despite the structure still standing, the couple says their home is uninhabitable and their insurer refuses to pay for professional remediation, reports CBS News. I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 5 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) 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 "The FAIR Plan simply did not conduct an adequate investigation and told them that they should clean the home themselves and move back in," said Dylan Schaffer, the couple's attorney with Kerley Schaffer, LLP. 'And that advice is not only contrary to California law, it's dangerous.' With their insurance claims rejected, Yates and Proctor are now suing the California FAIR Plan Association and the insurance companies that fund it. The FAIR Plan, which stands for Fair Access to Insurance Requirements, is California's fire insurance backstop — designed for homeowners and businesses in high-risk areas that can't get traditional insurance coverage. It's made up of multiple insurers who are legally required to participate and offer minimal coverage for fire-related damage. According to the couple's lawsuit, the FAIR Plan denied the couple's smoke damage claim on the basis that their home wasn't 'damaged' but simply 'dirty.' That's been a long-standing point of contention in wildfire insurance cases across the state. 'The problem with the FAIR Plan,' Schaffer told CBS reporters, 'is that their view — since 2012 and across thousands of wildfire claims — is that these houses are not damaged. They're dirty. And because insurance policies cover damage, not dirt, they don't want to pay to fix them.' Yates and Proctor are asking for reimbursement for smoke remediation and reconstruction work they say is necessary to make the home safe again, potentially starting from the studs. The California Department of Insurance declined to comment on the lawsuit specifically but said it expects insurers to stand by their policyholders. The FAIR Plan has come under scrutiny in recent years as wildfires grow more intense and widespread. While it serves as a last resort for many homeowners in fire-prone areas, critics say the coverage is often too limited, and the plan is even at risk of running out of money. Read more: The US stock market's 'fear gauge' has exploded — but this 1 'shockproof' asset is up 14% and helping American retirees stay calm. Here's how to own it ASAP Wildfires, hurricanes and floods can leave lasting damage to your home, even when the walls are still standing. If your insurer denies a claim after such an event, don't assume the story ends there. Here are some steps homeowners can take to protect themselves before and after a natural disaster. Before disaster strikes, review your homeowner's insurance policy closely. Make sure it includes coverage for fire, smoke and additional living expenses if your home becomes uninhabitable. In high-risk areas, supplemental policies may be needed to cover losses not included in basic plans, such as fire and flooding. As soon as it's safe to return, take photos and videos of everything — inside and out — and keep records of any professional assessments, such as air quality tests or contractor quotes, that show the extent of the damage. Public adjusters work on your behalf (not the insurance company's) to assess damage and negotiate claims. They charge a fee — often a percentage of your settlement — but can help maximize your payout. If you believe your claim has been unfairly denied, an attorney with experience in insurance disputes can advise you on next steps. In California, insurers are required by law to act in good faith and handle claims fairly. Denying a legitimate claim without a proper investigation may be grounds for legal action. As climate change increases the frequency and intensity of natural disasters, having the right insurance coverage isn't optional — it's essential. If you live in a high-risk area, talk with your agent about specific protections for wildfires, floods, earthquakes and temporary housing. The right type of coverage could make all the difference when facing the aftermath of a natural disaster. Want an extra $1,300,000 when you retire? Dave Ramsey says this 7-step plan 'works every single time' to kill debt, get rich in America — and that 'anyone' can do it Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — here are the alternative assets they're banking on instead Here are 5 'must have' items that Americans (almost) always overpay for — and very quickly regret. How many are hurting you? This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.
Yahoo
12-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Experts warn of compounding insurance crises setting the stage for a major fallout: 'That is going to spill over into housing markets'
The home insurance market is facing mounting pressures from worsening extreme weather events, leading to larger payouts for damage, people moving to riskier areas, and high inflation making insurance less affordable. Here's what you need to know to ensure your property stays protected without draining your bank account. According to Econofact, weather events with at least $1 billion in damages have increased substantially since about 2008, meaning insurers have had to pay more to help homeowners recover. In turn, insurance companies have raised premiums to cover losses, making it harder for residents to afford coverage. From 2020 to 2023, the average premium increased by a staggering 33%, according to a working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Some major insurers are even reducing coverage or pulling out of states facing high risks from wildfires, floods, and hurricanes, such as Florida, Texas, Louisiana, and California. While state-sponsored programs, including the Fair Access to Insurance Requirements (FAIR) Plan insurance policies, have helped many homeowners maintain coverage, these policies are meant to be a last resort and often don't provide full coverage. Further compounding the problems, high inflation rates have made it more expensive for homeowners to rebuild after natural disasters, leading many to consider relocating, per National Mortgage News. "Insurance is where many people are feeling the economic impacts of climate change first," Carolyn Kousky, associate vice president for economics and policy at the Environmental Defense Fund, told WLRN. "That is going to spill over into housing markets, mortgage markets, and local economies." As WLRN explained, the increasing frequency and severity of natural disasters caused by our warming planet is leaving insurers with no choice but to raise rates. But it's a vicious cycle, as homeowners then have to pay higher premiums, which may not be in the budget for many families. And it's not only high-risk states facing skyrocketing insurance rates. Experts have found that average premiums have increased by 39% across the Upper Midwest over the last seven years and warn of further rate hikes because of more extreme weather events. Would you feel safe living in a home that was built in less than a day? Sign me up No freaking way I'd have to see it first I'm not sure Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Human activity — namely, the burning of dirty fuels — is the main driver of more volatile weather, as it leads to higher concentrations of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, which contributes to more severe storms and rising temperatures. And while climate-resilient, energy-efficient homes can help communities be more prepared when disaster strikes, it's difficult to think about rebuilding if families don't have access to affordable insurance. California issued a mandate requiring insurers to offer coverage even in wildfire-prone areas, though homeowners will likely pay to offset the risk. Organizations and insurance commissioners in North Carolina are fighting to keep rates low for residents who lost their homes during Hurricane Helene. Some homeowners who lost homes in wildfires have turned to a natural building material humans have relied on for thousands of years to rebuild: dirt, or more specifically, mud bricks, which are what Indigenous communities used to build adobe homes in the Southwestern U.S. Using earth-based, durable materials not only lowers construction costs but also potentially reduces homeowners insurance costs. A major way to help insurers and homeowners is to reduce the pollution your home and car produce by switching to electric vehicles and energy-efficient appliances, like induction stoves or heat pumps. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Yahoo
09-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Two bills seek to address growing issue of home insurance cancellations over wildfire risk
Flames engulf the vegetation surrounding residential neighborhoods as the Pinehaven Fire burns on November 17, 2020 in Reno, Nevada. (Photo by) Thousands of homeowners in Nevada have seen their insurance policies canceled or not-renewed due to wildfire risk, prompting state lawmakers to warn that 'a crisis is brewing' and considering ways to combat it. Republican Assemblymember Jill Dickman from Washoe County believes Nevada should replicate a state-managed private insurance program already in place in 34 states and the District of Columbia. Dickman is sponsoring Assembly Bill 437, which would establish a Fair Access to Insurance Requirements (FAIR) Plan – an insurance program of last resort for homeowners who cannot reasonably obtain coverage through standard insurance providers. Her bill is one of two bills making its way through the Nevada State Legislature focused on home insurance availability amid increasing wildfire risk. FAIR plans, which have been around since the 1960s, provide coverage for homeowners who cannot find policies on the private market. The plans are managed by the state governments, but they are backed financially by a pool of the private insurers. California's FAIR plan has received the most public attention and criticism because of its size and the prevalence of wildfires in the state, but Dickman told the committee that Nevada's FAIR program would not look like its western neighbor's. Dickman wants Nevada's FAIR plan to remain 'a true market of last resort' that does not compete with the private market. To ensure that, she has drafted a conceptual amendment specifying that homeowners be denied by three standard insurance companies before being eligible for Nevada FAIR. They must also attempt to secure non-FAIR coverage every two years. Homeowners would also be required to undergo a wildfire risk assessment and implement its recommendations. The Nevada Fire Chiefs Association worked with Dickman on AB437. Representatives from the group emphasized the need to mitigate fire risk. Elko County Fire Chief Matthew Petersen estimated that once a week he receives a phone call from someone asking for help because their home insurance policy is getting canceled. Dickman has also capped what FAIR will insure – $5 million for commercial properties and $750,000 for residential properties. She acknowledged those limits are relatively low considering the cost of housing in many parts of the state. The median price of a home in Washoe County is currently around $550,000. 'We have to start somewhere,' said Dickman. 'We've been talking about this, and talking about this, and talking about it, and there's never any action taken. We're looking for the perfect plan.' Nevada, she argued, cannot afford to delay taking legislative action knowing it will also take time to implement any program. She noted Colorado passed legislation to create a FAIR plan in 2023 and is only beginning to offer coverage this year. 'If we put it off for two years, it'll be another two years, and by then we'll be in a crisis,' Dickman added. In 2023, 481 homeowners insurance policies were canceled or non-renewed due to wildfire risk — an 82% increase compared to the previous year, according to the Nevada Division of Insurance. That same year, nearly 5,000 applications for homeowners insurance were declined due to wildfire risk — a 104.8% increase over the previous year. Cadence Matijevich, a lobbyist for Washoe County, said there is a misguided assumption that wildfire insurance is 'an issue of the 1%' involving multimillion homes in Incline Village. 'That's not true,' she said. 'We've heard heartbreaking stories from senior citizens who've lived in homes for 50 years and are at risk of losing their homes because they couldn't get property insurance.' The American Property Casualty Insurance Association and the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies oppose the FAIR plan proposal. APCIA in a letter of opposition wrote that a FAIR plan 'fails to address the underlying issues that result in less affordable or available coverage.' Instead, the industry is supporting a separate bill meant to give them more flexibility in the types of insurance plans they can offer Nevadans. Republican Assemblymember P.K. O'Neill is sponsoring Assembly Bill 376, which would create for insurance companies what's known as a 'regulatory sandbox' that allows them to test out new types of plans that don't fit under current state regulations. The sandbox program would exist for 4 years, after which the Nevada Division of Insurance would have to submit to the Legislature a report with information and recommendations. Nevada Insurance Commissioner Scott Kipper, who presented the bill with O'Neill, told the committee the idea is to incentivize companies to create 'innovative products' by giving them 'some flexibility to generate revenue that is needed to manage risk.' O'Neill, who represents Carson City and parts of Storey and Washoe counties, said his bill uses model language drafted by the National Council of Insurance Legislators. AB376 doesn't mandate any type of product be tested but does provide some potential options, including removing wildfire coverage from the standard homeowners policies and offering it as a standalone package. The bill received a mixed reaction from committee members. Democratic Assemblywoman Sandra Jauregui said she is supportive of regulatory sandboxes to spur innovation. She pointed out that the Legislature passed one for the fintech industry in 2023. Democratic Assemblymember Max Carter expressed concern that insurance companies might be attempting to free themselves of having to cover wildfire damage. 'Are we turning everyone loose and letting the fires burn down our houses?' That concern was echoed by the Consumer Federation of America, which opposes the bill. 'This is a shoot first, ask questions later approach that is certain to increase premiums and put consumer financial security at risk,' the organization wrote in a letter of opposition. The Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee has taken no action on either bill. Dickman's FAIR plan bill must clear the committee by Friday or it will be considered dead. O'Neill's regulatory sandbox bill is exempt from legislative deadlines, meaning it has more time to advance. Kipper told the committee he is working on ways to get the bill's fiscal note ($237,000 over the upcoming biennium) removed. O'Neill and Dickman's bills are not mutually exclusive, and the latter assemblymember is listed as one of several sponsors on the former's bill. Washoe County testified in support of both bills. Nearly one-fifth of Nevada's land area has been burned by wildfire in the past 40 years, landing the state fifth in the nation for land area burned by wildfires. A new study by the Lied Center for Real Estate at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas found that more than 18% of Nevada's land mass has been torched by wildfire from 1984 through 2024. Northern Nevada has experienced a significantly larger number and total acres burned by wildfires than Southern Nevada, due to the differences in climate, terrain, and the presence of forested land. Rural counties in Northern Nevada were the most affected by wildfires in the state. Elko County had the largest percentage of land area burned by wildfire at 41%, followed by Humboldt at 39%, according to the study. One fourth of Washoe County's land area has been burdened by wildfires. Carson City, the state's capital, also experienced noticeable burns with 15% of its land impacted by wildfire. In Lincoln County, a rural county in Southern Nevada, about 18% of land mass has been burned by wildfires since 1984. In Clark County, Nevada's most populous county, only about 5% of its total land burned by wild fires in the past 40 years. The Lied Center's study was based on Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity wildfire data, a joint program administered by the United States Geological Survey and the United States Forest Service to map wildfires across the country. Lied Center for Real Estate Research Director Nicholas Irwin, who co-authored the study, told the Current that as more people move into forested areas wildfires are likely to become much more economically destructive moving forward. 'Coupled with the climate change we're seeing, longer drought, increased temperatures— that's going to make wildfire seasons a lot a lot worse,' he said. While other states have experienced more economically destructive wildfires, the number of wildfires impacting infrastructure in Nevada has increased in recent years. In September, the Davis Fire broke out in Davis Creek Regional Park, about 20 miles south of Reno. The wind-driven fire rapidly burned through 5,824 acres of private, state, and federal lands, driving the evacuation of about 20,000 people from residential neighborhoods and businesses. The fire ultimately destroyed two commercial buildings and 14 residences. Nevada's fire season, once limited to late summer and early fall, now spans nearly the entire calendar year. High wildfire risk makes areas less attractive for developers, impacting housing development, said Irwin. Rural areas, which already deal with high construction cost and other barriers to development, could be disproportionately impacted As Dickman put it during the AB437 hearing: 'You can't sell a home you can't insure.' These concerns are contributing to this year's push for legislative action. Beyond the proposals currently being considered, Irwin said Nevada could take a more proactive role in monitoring wildfire risk as other states do. In Colorado, the Colorado State Forest Service maps wildfires in an effort to inform homeowners and business owners of the impending risk for their location based on fire conditions. 'It's very costly, but it is very informative, and there's research out there to suggest homeowners respond to that information,' Irwin said. 'Knowing the relative risk of that land is going to be really important so we can think about how to build strong and resilient homes that won't be at risk for future wildfires.'
Yahoo
21-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Residents blindsided as insurance companies pull coverage without warning: 'The ability to afford where we live is decreasing rapidly'
Data from the National Interagency Fire Center shows that the extent of area burned by wildfires in the U.S. appears to have increased since the 1980s, per the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. As wildfire damage becomes more rampant in the wake of human-induced extreme weather events, insurance companies are losing massive amounts of money to frequent payouts, forcing them to drop coverage, as we see happening to Boulder residents. Insurance companies are pulling the rug from under Boulder residents for several reasons. Some residents' coverage was dropped due to living in a high-wildfire-risk zone. Other Boulder residents saw their premiums double, forcing them to reconsider whether staying in the area was feasible. Still, other residents lost coverage due to owning high-value properties (over $1 million in value), which fell outside the purview of insurance company policies. Boulder resident Kristina Miller Olsen falls in this last category of homeowners, with a property valued at $3.5 million, according to Zillow. Olsen said the thought of losing her house to a wildfire without full insurance coverage worries her "because we have a fair amount of retirement savings in our property valuation," per Boulder Reporting Lab. After being dropped by Nationwide due to having a high-value property, Olsen found new coverage with State Farm. However, her premium jumped from $4,510 to $11,947. Rising home insurance costs are affecting homeowners across the country, including in North Carolina, California, Florida, and Louisiana. If climate data is any indication of what's to come, rising global temperatures, caused by human activity — including burning dirty fossil fuels for energy — will only bring about more wildfires and other extreme weather events. The increased wildfire risk not only puts communities at risk, but it also gives insurance companies a reason to pull their coverage from high-risk areas, whether or not that is ethical. When was your home built? Less than 10 years ago 10-25 years ago 25-50 years ago Over 50 years ago Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Homeowners who lose coverage or those who can't afford to pay the inflated premiums risk losing their homes to fire or losing their homes to displacement. "The ability to afford where we live is decreasing rapidly," Olsen said, per Boulder Reporting Lab. Colorado policymakers are scrambling to keep homeowners and their homes safe amid disappointing insurance company decisions. To lower wildfire risk in communities and to appeal to insurance companies, the HB 1182 proposed bill will require insurers to consider wildfire mitigation efforts that homeowners take, to lower premiums. The state is also creating the Fair Access to Insurance Requirements (FAIR) Plan to provide last-resort coverage (up to $750,000) for high-risk property homeowners. The cost for coverage will be shared among major insurers to cover Colorado homeowners while recognizing the burden that insurers will bear. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
