As we all know,
California’s insurance market is at a crossroads, with growing challenges that
have left homeowners grappling with limited access to affordable coverage. Over
recent years, seven of California’s 12 largest homeowners insurance providers,
including State Farm and Allstate, have either paused or scaled back their
business in the state. This exodus has impacts far beyond the immediate loss of
coverage, threatening the stability of the housing market and exposing flaws in
the state’s insurance framework. To fully understand the crisis and chart a
path forward, we must explore its underlying causes, legislative context, and
potential remedies.
Insurers cite three
interconnected reasons for pulling back from California’s market:
California’s
susceptibility to natural disasters, particularly wildfires, has fundamentally
altered the insurance landscape. The past decade has seen devastating fire
seasons, with record-breaking events like the 2018 Camp Fire incurring $16.5
billion in damages. With rising temperatures fueling faster, more destructive
wildfires, insurers face mounting costs at an unsustainable scale. Hundreds of
thousands of homes built in wildfire-prone areas have only added to the risk.
Economic factors also
contribute to the crisis. Inflation has driven up construction costs, from
materials like lumber to rebuilding labor expenses. Combined with higher claims
payouts for wildfire-damaged properties, these pressures have stretched many insurers
to a financial breaking point.
Unique to California is a stringent regulatory framework governed by Proposition 103, a landmark law passed in 1988. While its goal was to protect consumers by capping insurance rate hikes, it has inadvertently created barriers for insurers trying to operate sustainably in a changing market. Under Prop 103, companies must justify rate increases using historical risk data from the past 20 years, preventing them from accounting for future uncertainties like escalating wildfire intensity or climate-related risks. Additionally, insurers cannot include the cost of reinsurance—the coverage they purchase to offset major losses—when calculating premiums, even as reinsurance prices rise globally.
The result? A disconnect between the state’s insurance rates and its growing risk profile. Companies like Farmers, State Farm, and Allstate have cited this lack of flexibility as a key reason for limiting their California operations. Rate approvals under this system are often delayed for a year or more, leaving insurers unable to adjust quickly enough to remain solvent.
Proposition 103 mandates strict limits on how insurers calculate and increase premiums, giving California a unique “rate suppression” problem. When premiums do not reflect actual or predicted risks, insurers cannot break even, forcing them to reduce exposure. Actuarially sound pricing—setting rates that align with real risk—becomes nearly impossible.
The law also made the position of insurance commissioner an elected role, injecting politics into an inherently technical process. Few elected officials are willing to publicly advocate for measures, like increasing premiums in high-risk areas, that might alienate voters.
While Proposition 103 initially succeeded in keeping homeowner premiums affordable, its limitations are now starkly evident in an era of worsening disasters. Many experts see reforming the law as a necessary step for rebalancing the market.
The gravity of the situation prompted action in September 2023. Governor Gavin Newsom signed an executive order urging the state’s Insurance Commissioner, Ricardo Lara, to implement sweeping changes. Dubbed the Sustainable Insurance Strategy, these reforms are designed to stabilize California’s insurance market while adapting to modern risks.
1. Expedited Rate Reviews
The reform prioritizes speeding up the rate approval process, which currently takes over a year in some cases. Commissioner Lara committed to a 60-day timeline, with provisions for two 30-day extensions if necessary. This shift aims to ease insurers’ ability to adjust rates in response to evolving market conditions.
2. Forward-Looking Catastrophe Modeling
Insurers can now include predictive modeling to estimate future risks when submitting rate increase requests. This marks a significant departure from relying solely on historical data. These models assess variables like climate trends and wildfire exposure, offering a more comprehensive risk calculation. However, given concerns about transparency and fairness, insurers must get state approval for their models. To address this issue, the state is also developing a public catastrophe model to ensure accountability.
FAIR Plan Modernization
California’s FAIR Plan, the state-run insurer of last resort, has historically provided minimal coverage at high costs. Under the new reforms, its offerings will expand to better serve commercial and residential policyholders, particularly in high-risk areas. However, these changes could generate higher rates for all homeowners, as FAIR Plan deficits may be recouped through public assessments.
California’s vulnerability to natural disasters, particularly wildfires, has exacerbated the insurance crisis. Between 2020 and 2022, over 2.8 million homeowners faced non-renewals of their policies, with destructive wildfires wiping out decades of profits for insurers. Events such as the 2018 Camp Fire alone caused damages exceeding $16.5 billion, forcing companies to question their capacity to absorb future losses. Climate change has made wildfires more frequent and intense, with hotter, drier conditions creating a perfect storm for disasters.
However, as former State Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones emphasized, the crisis cannot be entirely attributed to climate change. Instead, it reveals a more pressing issue—insurance pricing does not adequately reflect today’s risk landscape. California’s outdated insurance regulations have made it nearly impossible for insurers to adapt to the rapidly escalating costs of disasters.
At the heart of the crisis is Proposition 103, a voter-approved law enacted in 1988. While praised for protecting consumers from unjustified price hikes, the measure has unintentionally stifled the ability of insurance companies to remain competitive. Under Prop 103, insurers must calculate rates primarily using historical data—overlooking forward-looking catastrophe modeling that accounts for evolving risks.
For example, companies are barred from factoring in the rising cost of reinsurance, which insurers purchase to mitigate their exposure to large-scale claims. Reinsurance prices have surged due to inflation and the increasing frequency of wildfire-related losses. Yet, California remains the only state where these costs cannot legally influence premium rates, creating a significant financial strain.
Policy delays compound the problem further. Rate increase approvals frequently take upwards of a year, leaving insurers unable to respond to market conditions in real time. Consequently, insurers like State Farm, Allstate, and Farmers have ceased offering new policies in the state, citing an inability to keep pace with the rising costs of doing business.
According to analyses from organizations such as the International Law and Economics Center (ILEC), California leads the nation in “rate suppression,” a phenomenon where insurance premiums are artificially kept below actuarially sound levels. This disconnect has led to an unsustainable market in which companies cannot break even, prompting many to exit altogether.
Additionally, Proposition 103 imposed an electoral process for the insurance commissioner role, further politicizing rate setting. Few elected officials are willing to back measures that raise costs for voters, even when necessary to stabilize the market.
The California insurance crisis underscores the complexity of managing risk and affordability in an era of climate volatility. Policy decisions made decades ago, rooted in well-meaning consumer protections, inadvertently set the stage for today’s market upheaval. Without urgently addressing rate suppression, regulatory inefficiencies, and growing climate risks, the state’s insurance market will remain precarious.
California’s path forward requires political courage, innovative solutions, and collaboration between regulators, insurers, and consumers. Above all, it demands a shift from reactive policies to proactive strategies that ensure long-term sustainability. Only then will California be able to restore balance to its insurance market and secure a future where homeowners can feel adequately protected.
While forward-looking models may help insurers regain financial footing, consumer advocacy groups worry about a lack of transparency in how these tools calculate risk. Critics argue that proprietary algorithms—sometimes called “black boxes”—allow insurers to justify price hikes without clear accountability. Homeowners in wildfire-prone areas are particularly concerned, as these changes could lead to substantial premium increases.
Additionally, critics of the Sustainable Insurance Strategy note gaps in its implementation, including no binding requirements for insurers to increase policy offerings in underserved regions. Provisions encouraging companies to cover up to 85% of their market share in wildfire-prone areas are discretionary rather than mandatory.
LA’s Hughes wildfire rages across 9,000+ acres; evacuations ordered
Wildfire smoke moves across Southern California
LA fires: Jamie Lee Curtis donates, Meghan Markle shares aid
Wildfires plague the West amid a scorching heat wave and high winds
Homes Burn in San Bernardino as California Battles Wildfires
A perfect storm’: CNN’s Nick Watt on how the Los Angeles fires got so bad
(973) 393-5677
