California Fires

[Traveler]

I do not know how the rest of you feel but listening to the news (whatever channel or political favor) – it sure does not seem that anybody knows anything worthwhile or accurate to say.  Sometimes I think that insurance companies seem to know the most about what is going on and act accordingly.  State Farm is the largest home insurer in the nation and pulled out of doing business in California last July.  They still have some homes insured because the paid term (year) has not expired.   Other insurers have pulled out as well claiming that the risk is too high for allowed premiums regulated through the California insurance commission.

I understand that Florida has a similar insurance problem - Perhaps @LDSGator can give us some insights concerning Florida.

I understand that many do not like insurance companies and think that insurance make too much profit.  However, companies like State Farm are Mutuals and profits are regulated similar (but not so much) to utilities.  Mutuals must provide risk information – open to the public.

 

The Traveler

Edited January 13 by Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

Insurance companies are one of the strengths of a capitalist structure.  State Farm pulling out of Cali turned out to be an excellent predictor.  People should have listened.  

You know what else is an excellent predictor of your community's safety?  How much cops like living and working in your area.

[LDSGator]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

understand that Florida has a similar insurance problem - Perhaps @LDSGator can give us some insights concerning Florida.

I understand that many

Funny you mention that bro. 
 

https://www.newsweek.com/will-florida-court-ruling-end-homeowners-insurance-crisis-2011477

[zil2]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

Other insurers have pulled out as well claiming that the risk is too high for allowed premiums regulated through the California insurance commission.

Check out how much it will cost you, @Traveler (or any Utahn), to add earthquake coverage to your homeowner's insurance, versus, say, tornado coverage.   The insurance companies know the risks for a given area and will include the low-risk items, but they'll charge you a pretty (gazillion) penny(ies) to cover things that are probable in your area.

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

Check out how much it will cost you, @Traveler (or any Utahn), to add earthquake coverage to your homeowner's insurance, versus, say, tornado coverage.   The insurance companies know the risks for a given area and will include the low-risk items, but they'll charge you a pretty (gazillion) penny(ies) to cover things that are probable in your area.

My father was an insurance agent.  I was taught well.  I have earthquake insurance on my home.  The costs for insurance can vary depending on where in the Salt Lake Valley one lives – also the lost risk purchased.  I personally only cover for catastrophic losses with the most deductible allowed.   I do not purchase replacement reimbursement coverage.  I purchase a specific amount for a total loss.  I also maintain salvage rights.

I have my reasons for what I purchase and realize that very few understand or desire minimum risk-based insurance coverage.  As a side note, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is self-insured for their structures.    Something else very few realize is that purchasing for loss due to war or civil uprising is not offered anywhere.  Pending on one’s policy - loss because of civil protests is a fringe coverage that insurance companies can deny depending on circumstance.  This kind of upsets me a bit because this is not clearly understood.  I am of the mind that a property owner in a free country should have the right to protect their property with lethal force.  I also think more of our society would agree with me if they understood how their state government can affect their insurance coverage.

 

The Traveler   

[Carborendum]

I'm working really hard to get rid of my mortgage so I don't have to have any insurance on my home at all.

[Vort]

14 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'm working really hard to get rid of my mortgage so I don't have to have any insurance on my home at all.

Unless you can set aside half the value of your house in case of damage, I think not insuring your house is, generally speaking, a dangerous idea.

[Carborendum]

17 minutes ago, Vort said:

Unless you can set aside half the value of your house in case of damage, I think not insuring your house is, generally speaking, a dangerous idea.

I've had a LOT of damage to my house in the past 10 years I've lived here.  Rain, wind, vegetation, mold, pipes bursting from freeze... For nearly every single case, they found some reason to deny coverage or raise the deductible to beyond the repair cost.  Two damage claims generated a deductible that was over $20k because of "special conditions").  This was for two different companies.

I had one claim that they said they would pay.  But instead of a $2000 deductible for a $20k job (which is what they quoted me before I hired the contractor) they said that I had to pay $18.5k+ and they would cover the rest.  They gave no reason for the switch.  They actually dared me to sue them.

It is a useless mechanism that is only designed to allow insurance companies to bleed me dry.  It never has done any good.  It never will do any good.

In the meantime, several people who have paid off their houses decided to drop their policy and simply invest it into a "house repair fund."  They found that the fund has grown even after they had to take funds out to pay for repairs.  And they don't have to jump through hoops or worry about deductibles, etc.

My BIL who is an insurance agent says that all companies are pinching their pennies and denying claims because the industry is about to die.  Way too many claims from way too many sources.  They simply can't cover them.

No, it will be very difficult to convince me that insurance will do any good at all.

Edited January 13 by Carborendum

[zil2]

42 minutes ago, Traveler said:

My father was an insurance agent.  I was taught well.  I have earthquake insurance on my home.  The costs for insurance can vary depending on where in the Salt Lake Valley one lives – also the lost risk purchased.  I personally only cover for catastrophic losses with the most deductible allowed.   I do not purchase replacement reimbursement coverage.  I purchase a specific amount for a total loss.  I also maintain salvage rights.

I have my reasons for what I purchase and realize that very few understand or desire minimum risk-based insurance coverage.  As a side note, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is self-insured for their structures.    Something else very few realize is that purchasing for loss due to war or civil uprising is not offered anywhere.  Pending on one’s policy - loss because of civil protests is a fringe coverage that insurance companies can deny depending on circumstance.  This kind of upsets me a bit because this is not clearly understood.  I am of the mind that a property owner in a free country should have the right to protect their property with lethal force.  I also think more of our society would agree with me if they understood how their state government can affect their insurance coverage.

Now I'm wondering what company you found to arrange this.  The only two with which I have experience don't seem to offer these sorts of things - or if they do, they hide it very well - which is my whole complaint against the insurance industries across the board - they rely on fear and confusion.

I'm seriously considering doing what @Carborendum proposes as I doubt I will ever need my homeowner's insurance - pretty sure the world will end before I do.

[Vort]

11 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

They gave no reason for the switch.  They actually dared me to sue them.

Why didn't you? It costs nothing to register a complaint with the state insurance commission.

11 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

In the meantime, several people who have paid off their houses decided to drop their policy and simply invest it into a "house repair fund."  They found that the fund has grown even after they had to take funds out to pay for repairs.  And they don't have to jump through hoops or worry about deductibles, etc.

I think this is a marvelous idea. I'm just not sure that you should go uninsured while your house repair fund is unfunded.

Edited January 13 by Vort

[Carborendum]

49 minutes ago, Vort said:

Why didn't you? It costs nothing to register a complaint with the state insurance commission.

Too late now.

49 minutes ago, Vort said:

I think this is a marvelous idea. I'm just not sure that you should go uninsured while your house repair fund is unfunded.

I have a fund of a substantial amount.  And by the time I pay off the house (on my accelerated schedule) I'd expect it to have grown to about half the value of the house (today).  I don't know how much it will be worth by that time.

Edited January 13 by Carborendum

[mirkwood]

@zil2 I have earthquake insurance, it is about $500 a year I think.  I've had it for quite a few years and don't remember the amount.

[NeuroTypical]

Heh.  Article in the WSJ about armed homeowners who declined the evacuation orders.

Quote

LOS ANGELES—In the still-smoldering neighborhoods of Altadena, where fires destroyed more than 2,700 structures, about 80 people have defied orders to evacuate, staying behind to protect what is left of their properties from looters and more fires after losing faith in authorities.

Residents patrol streets and interrogate strangers, living in a Hobbesian world without electricity or clean drinking water. Some are armed. They are hemmed in by yellow caution tape at neighborhood entrances flanked by National Guard troops, Los Angeles County Sheriff deputies and California Highway Patrol officers.

“We do feel like we’re in the Wild West,” said Aaron Lubeley, a 53-year-old lawyer who is one of the holdouts and serves as an unofficial emissary with police and fire representatives. 

If Lubeley and the others try to leave, they risk being unable to return. On Monday, one of Lubeley’s friends, Janely Sandoval, delivered essentials. The real-estate broker drove her white Mercedes SUV up to the neighborhood checkpoint and stacked supplies for Lubeley and others at the makeshift border: water, bagels, bananas, grain-free tortilla chips and other staples.

“Can you guys hurry up?” one officer told Sandoval as she finished. “We just got an order not to allow any supplies through.” 

Before Sandoval departed, Lubeley asked, “Can I hug my friend?” 

The officer nodded, and Lubeley and Sandoval embraced across the yellow caution tape.

EveAnna Manley, one of the Altadena holdouts, had prepared for this moment. Her house has a natural-gas generator supplying 22 kilowatts of power, enough for several refrigerators, making her one of the few neighbors with electricity. She has 60 gallons of drinking water in the basement, as well as a reverse-osmosis water filter and hot-water tanks for showering. 

“My old neighbor was a real prepper, I learned it from him,” said Manley, who runs an audio-equipment business. “I also replaced my wood-siding shingles with concrete ones. I don’t know if that’s why my house survived.”

 

This story is quite validating for us preparedness enthusiasts and 2nd amendment fans.  Once a big enough disaster hits, even Californians can begin to display some common sense.

 

Edited January 15 by NeuroTypical

[Carborendum]

29 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

living in a Hobbesian world

That is the third time in as many days that I've seen that word.  I've never heard of it before.  It's a good word.  But, seriously?  Three times?

BTW, we'd win.

29 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I also replaced my wood-siding shingles with concrete ones. I don’t know if that’s why my house survived.

I am going to be doing my siding in the next year or so.  I wonder if I should do hardi-plank.  I'm in a wooded area.  Who knows?

Edited January 15 by Carborendum

[Vort]

9 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

That is the third time in as many days that I've seen that word.  I've never heard of it before.  It's a good word.  But, seriously?  Three times?

C'est le mot juste.

[Carborendum]

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

C'est le mot juste.

What is it with you and French lately?

[Vort]

20 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

What is it with you and French lately?

https://comb.io/ro84NO

[Carborendum]

15 hours ago, Vort said:

https://comb.io/ro84NO

Of course. The language of villainy.

[NeuroTypical]

18 hours ago, Carborendum said:

18 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

living in a Hobbesian world

That is the third time in as many days that I've seen that word.  I've never heard of it before.  It's a good word.  But, seriously?  Three times?

I had to look it up too:

It appears to be an attempt from elitest liberals to make sense of how badly they lost to Trump and the Republicans.  Or maybe an end of the Bush-started and Obama-popularized globalism, with a return to plain old nationalism.

I mean, just looking at that AI definition, it's not too far away from my own view of how the world works.  I absolutely believe that individuals act primarily out of self-interest, which is why all attempts at Socialism/Marxism/Communism are doomed to fail.   That said, I do not believe this leads to a 'war of all against all'.  Nor do I believe it leads to the necessity of a centralized authority.  I'm still a happy constitutional conservative, a fan of our representative republic with the power contained at the state level, with a few limited powers granted to the federal government.   60% of everything I hear from Trump tells me he's of a similar mind.  Borders and control over immigration, possible expansion into Greenland, forcing our allies to fund their own defense instead of us doing it for them, containing China before we get contained by China - this is all stuff I want the fedgov to do.

Edited January 16 by NeuroTypical

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

I had to look it up too:

It appears to be an attempt from elitest liberals to make sense of how badly they lost to Trump and the Republicans.  Or maybe an end of the Bush-started and Obama-popularized globalism, with a return to plain old nationalism.

I mean, just looking at that AI definition, it's not too far away from my own view of how the world works.  I absolutely believe that individuals act primarily out of self-interest, which is why all attempts at Socialism/Marxism/Communism are doomed to fail.   That said, I do not believe this leads to a 'war of all against all'.  Nor do I believe it leads to the necessity of a centralized authority.  I'm still a happy constitutional conservative, a fan of our representative republic with the power contained at the state level, with a few limited powers granted to the federal government.   60% of everything I hear from Trump tells me he's of a similar mind.  Borders and control over immigration, possible expansion into Greenland, forcing our allies to fund their own defense instead of us doing it for them, containing China before we get contained by China - this is all stuff I want the fedgov to do.

What central planners fail to understand about the Constitution is that it was both a declaration and an admission.

• DECLARATION: Freedom of the individual is absolutely necessary to have a thriving, growing nation of peace.
• ADMISSION: There is no way to guarantee freedom of the individual without some level of force to protect good actors from bad actors.

The idea is that having one tyrant over 340 million slaves is about as bad as having 340 million tyrants all running around in chaos.

So, the Constitution was the Founders attempt at what they called "The Balanced Middle."  While the definition of this will vary from generation to generation, theirs was a take based on a LOT of research on:

• Thriving societies of the past.
• The tyranny they fought recently to overthrow.
• And the anarchy they had been experiencing under the Articles of Confederation.

And there was a lot of compromise among the framers of the Constitution who all had different ideas of what they thought it should be.

If we want to go away from their concept of the balanced middle, just what are we basing our judgement on?

Edited January 16 by Carborendum