jdasdf 9 days ago

There is only one reason why insurance straight up isn't available somewhere, and the reason is regulation.

I can assure you that no matter how high the risk of fire, insurers will be willing to provide insurance on that so long as they are legally allowed to charge the appropriate premiums.

  • bell-cot 9 days ago

    > There is only one reason why...

    Not true. Assume for the moment that you're the CEO of Golden Insurance Co., and you're still writing fire insurance policies in Burn County, CA. After Yet Another massive fire - and loads of "100% loss" payouts - from your balance sheet - the experts in your Risk Estimating Dept. say the premium to insure a $600K house in Burn Co. needs to be $200K/year - because they expect to pay out to replace that house ($600K) every 4 year ($150K/year), and they need the other $50K for overhead and temp. relocation benefits and rebuilding-cost inflation and a bit of hedge - just in case they're wrong, and things burn down even more often.

    Now - if the fire insurance for a $600K house costs $200K/year, how many of the homeowners can and will actually pay that much for fire insurance? Perhaps a number that's falling like a rock? Meanwhile, Wall St. is howling about the horrible risk that your balance sheet is facing, if there's another big fire season. And the 99% of homeowners who can't afford those premiums are bitterly angry, and in a mood to string up the bearer of bad news (meaning you) from the highest tree still standing.

    SO - why wouldn't you, as CEO, make the unfortunate decision to just stop writing fire insurance policies for properties in Burn Co., CA?

    • JumpCrisscross 9 days ago

      The answer amid a lack of regulation is NumptyCo sells a policy for $10k, pays most of that to its owner, and declares insolvency at the first sight of a claim.

  • Aeolun 9 days ago

    That would be the part of the grandparent where the other option is ‘unaffordable’ yes?

  • jjk166 9 days ago

    No one is going to spend $10 a month to insure a paper plate. If no one is going to buy a policy, it doesn't make sense to have the infrastructure in place to sell that policy. Thus no one offers insurance policies on paper plates.

bragr 9 days ago

>people should not be living there

How do people afford to move and start new lives when you can't sell your property because it is uninsurable?

  • rrix2 9 days ago

    perhaps we should not treat systemic social failure as individuals' responsibility to resolve on their own without support of the State

    • JumpCrisscross 9 days ago

      > we should not treat systemic social failure as individuals' responsibility to resolve on their own without support of the State

      Nobody is suggesting jailing the irresponsible. But there is no reason they’re entitled to that capital. They took a risk and it was a bad one.

      • [removed] 7 days ago
        [deleted]