Honest question, if they mismanaged what if effectively the tinder that ignited this blaze, could insurers say they aren’t obliged to pay?
Discussion
Insurance companies have left California in droves and it has become prohibitively expensive for most people to purchase fire insurance for homes except for gov subsidized programs. “California Fair plan” which is still very expensive and offers poor coverage. So the entire fire insurance industry in California is essentially a state Gov program like Obama care for fire insurance where the state mandates that the companies have to insure everyone at “fair rates” regardless of the specifics of risk and if the person has done the work to make their home lower risk.
It’s a combination of restrictive insurance regs and insane environmental regs.
The insurance and fire industry are essentially painted into a corner. The only solutions that get any traction are more taxes and redistributive policies.
Thank you Chris, very helpful, and sort of what I would think….. “oh no, you can’t do preventative burns, that would be bad for the environment”…… 🤦♂️
On the prescribed fire front it is gradually changing thanks to the work of a number of scientist and advocates. But the solution is always more Gov programs and oversite never freedom, that’s California for you.
It’s also that the forests are so overgrown now that burns are infeasible in some areas without mechanical treatments first otherwise it will cause 100% tree mortality which is really bad for forest health.
I have not heard of an insurance company denying claims on this basis. They either bend the knee to Sacramento or leave the state.