LA wildfires

[muppy]

27 minutes ago, North Buffalo said:

 

NICE! did you have fun? I'm guessing that is a yes 🙂

5 hours ago, TheBrownBear said:

Are you a Rock Church member?  My kid plays guitar at the School of Rock (unaffiliated) across the street and I've always wondered what one of those mega churches was like...lol (I'm a lapsed Catholic).

no Im not a member. My daughter heard they were hosting a donations drive so we drove  there to drop off supplies.

 

The Rock is a contemporary Christian church that has been in San Diego for years. I've never been to a service. HUGE mega church. Literally 1000's of members across all their campuses

[SoCal Deek]

On 1/13/2025 at 9:14 AM, blitzboy54 said:

 

Same, I actually dropped USAA because my rates kept jumping. My home owners and car were rocketing up. I am going back because everyone else has now caught up. USAA is first class you know you get what you pay for. Now everyone else is putting California and Florida on us. My homeowners through Allstate went from $850 to $1590 from last year to this one. Never had a claim. Just wild. 

My Southern California home is insured through USAA but I know for a fact that if I sell it and buy a new one, they will not provide me with a policy. Geeez! 

[LABILLBACKER]

2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

My Southern California home is insured through USAA but I know for a fact that if I sell it and buy a new one, they will not provide me with a policy. Geeez! 

I guarantee you they won't.  I've already had 3 family members in this area have their insurance companies drop them.  There will be a mass exodus of insurance companies in California.  Somehow the federal government will have to get involved. 

[Jon in Pasadena]

On 1/11/2025 at 2:21 PM, Jon in Pasadena said:

I know at least five friends so far that lost their homes and everything in this fire. And I'm sure there will be more to come 😞 

 

Now it's up to six, just found out a coworker that I went snowboarding with last season lost her home. 

*****, make that seven, a HS football teammate of my son lost his home and everything in the fire.

[Alphadawg7]

Our friends who lost everything in the Pacific Palisades have already had their claim DENIED by the insurance company.  There was a fine print clause that nullified fire coverage if there was a tree within a 100 feet of the house.  Which includes any trees on any neighboring property or public property where they have no control of removing a tree.  Not to mention, it was the Pacific Palisades where there were trees everywhere.  They said they have other people they know who lost everything get the same denial notice from their insurance company.

 

There are going to be a lot of law suits coming out of all this, things are going to get ugly and be even harder for a lot of people who thought they were insured and after losing everything finding out they have nothing coming to rebuild their lives despite paying astronomically high premium prices.  Wasn't like they had some budget discount insurance either.  

[nedboy7]

14 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

Our friends who lost everything in the Pacific Palisades have already had their claim DENIED by the insurance company.  There was a fine print clause that nullified fire coverage if there was a tree within a 100 feet of the house.  Which includes any trees on any neighboring property or public property where they have no control of removing a tree.  Not to mention, it was the Pacific Palisades where there were trees everywhere.  They said they have other people they know who lost everything get the same denial notice from their insurance company.

 

There are going to be a lot of law suits coming out of all this, things are going to get ugly and be even harder for a lot of people who thought they were insured and after losing everything finding out they have nothing coming to rebuild their lives despite paying astronomically high premium prices.  Wasn't like they had some budget discount insurance either.  

That is beyond disgusting.  

[boyst]

Amazing the dichotomy of this vs. WNC. 

[chongli]

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

On 1/15/2025 at 2:40 PM, Alphadawg7 said:

Our friends who lost everything in the Pacific Palisades have already had their claim DENIED by the insurance company.  There was a fine print clause that nullified fire coverage if there was a tree within a 100 feet of the house.  Which includes any trees on any neighboring property or public property where they have no control of removing a tree.  Not to mention, it was the Pacific Palisades where there were trees everywhere.  They said they have other people they know who lost everything get the same denial notice from their insurance company.

 

There are going to be a lot of law suits coming out of all this, things are going to get ugly and be even harder for a lot of people who thought they were insured and after losing everything finding out they have nothing coming to rebuild their lives despite paying astronomically high premium prices.  Wasn't like they had some budget discount insurance either.  

 

those suits would be hard to win.  when you purchase a policy for a home  in a high risk area, the "fine print" is important, like it or not.  No company can be solvent insuring homes in extreme fire/flood/hurricane areas.  No company can be mandated to cover such decisions by homeowners. 

 

it would make more sense for those owners who chose insure such houses to pretty much "go bare" on total loss (natural disaster/weather related)  insurance and just cover for theft, etc.  If you aren't going to get a settlement for fire such as wildfire, why pay for it every year?

[JP51]

26 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

those suits would be hard to win.  when you purchase a policy for a home  in a high risk area, the "fine print" is important, like it or not.  No company can be solvent insuring homes in extreme fire/flood/hurricane areas.  No company can be mandated to cover such decisions by homeowners. 

 

it would make more sense for those owners who chose insure such houses to pretty much "go bare" on total loss (natural disaster/weather related)  insurance and just cover for theft, etc.  If you aren't going to get a settlement for fire such as wildfire, why pay for it every year?

True. But try getting a mortgage with no insurance... Lenders typically require this... so not only would they have to self insure, but they would have to self fund the property as well...  its a terrible quandary... the only thing I think that can be done is the expansion of FEMA Flood Insurance to include Wild Fire zones... now we have the government involved even deeper in home owners insurance and for those that have paid Flood Ins thru FEMA its literally insane pricing... not sure what they are gonna do here... 

[Alphadawg7]

44 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

those suits would be hard to win.  when you purchase a policy for a home  in a high risk area, the "fine print" is important, like it or not.  No company can be solvent insuring homes in extreme fire/flood/hurricane areas.  No company can be mandated to cover such decisions by homeowners. 

 

it would make more sense for those owners who chose insure such houses to pretty much "go bare" on total loss (natural disaster/weather related)  insurance and just cover for theft, etc.  If you aren't going to get a settlement for fire such as wildfire, why pay for it every year?

I certainly don’t disagree about how those suits will be hard to win and also will drag out a long time most likely without some sort of government involvement.  
 

But, on the other part, you can’t go bare unless you own your home free and clear which there are very few of those in these losses.  No lender is going to allow a homeowner to go bare, and since my last post I also found out that they learned that it was a later addendum to the policy not the initial policy which is why the lender accepted it in the first place, otherwise the lender would have denied the policy and the loan would have fallen out before closing on the purchase without finding another suitable policy that had proper coverage.

 

The insurance companies know this, which is probably why they choose to make these changes after the fact because the lender isn’t likely going to know once a loan is in servicing and those lenders are now vulnerable of losing hundreds of thousands to millions on each of those high value homes of real money they handed out.  
 

It to me appears to be an intentional shady practice, annd that’s going to be their best angle in my non-lawyer opinion.  It helps that It’s not just going to be the homeowners who got screwed, it’s going to be all the banks and lenders too who have the resources to combat the insurance companies.  
 

End of the day…the lesson is ALWAYS read your policies and the fine print (which I admittedly haven’t done often enough myself)…but at the same time, insurance companies do their best to hide that and make as hard to find as possible when they make these shady changes.  In industries I have experience in like the Cannabis industry and Mortgage industry, there are certain things and requirements that must not only be present in marketing (or packaging), but they also MUST be very visible and easy to read and find or you aren’t if compliance. 
 

Insurance companies should have to do the same and be prevented from altering after the fact and/or burying changes in fine print where they are banking on the high probability it will be missed by the policy holder.  

Edited January 17 by Alphadawg7

[JP51]

28 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

I certainly don’t disagree about how those suits will be hard to win and also will drag out a long time most likely without some sort of government involvement.  
 

But, on the other part, you can’t go bare unless you own your home free and clear which there are very few of those in these losses.  No lender is going to allow a homeowner to go bare, and since my last post I also found out that they learned that it was a later addendum to the policy not the initial policy which is why the lender accepted it in the first place, otherwise the lender would have denied the policy and the loan would have fallen out before closing on the purchase without finding another suitable policy that had proper coverage.

 

The insurance companies know this, which is probably why they choose to make these changes after the fact because the lender isn’t likely going to know once a loan is in servicing and those lenders are now vulnerable of losing hundreds of thousands to millions on each of those high value homes of real money they handed out.  
 

It to me appears to be an intentional shady practice, annd that’s going to be their best angle in my non-lawyer opinion.  It helps that It’s not just going to be the homeowners who got screwed, it’s going to be all the banks and lenders too who have the resources to combat the insurance companies.  
 

End of the day…the lesson is ALWAYS read your policies and the fine print (which I admittedly haven’t done often enough myself)…but at the same time, insurance companies do their best to hide that and make as hard to find as possible when they make these shady changes.  In industries I have experience in like the Cannabis industry and Mortgage industry, there are certain things and requirements that must not only be present in marketing (or packaging), but they also MUST be very visible and easy to read and find or you aren’t if compliance. 
 

Insurance companies should have to do the same and be prevented from altering after the fact and/or burying changes in fine print where they are banking on the high probability it will be missed by the policy holder.  

Ok... we are so off Bills topic here... so apologies... but I agree and I think after this you will see regulation that calls for transparency like a Truth in Lending disclosure that will obviously call out the caveats in the insurance, fully disclose them separate from the fine print and have the insured sign off specifically on them because to put these things in the fine print is highly shady especially the way that they are phrased... you need to be in the industry or an attorney to sometimes even understand the implications... again not Bills related... apologies... I will stop now.  

[That's No Moon]

Banks are going to make a killing off this, followed by real estate developers.

[Alphadawg7]

1 hour ago, JP51 said:

Ok... we are so off Bills topic here... so apologies... but I agree and I think after this you will see regulation that calls for transparency like a Truth in Lending disclosure that will obviously call out the caveats in the insurance, fully disclose them separate from the fine print and have the insured sign off specifically on them because to put these things in the fine print is highly shady especially the way that they are phrased... you need to be in the industry or an attorney to sometimes even understand the implications... again not Bills related... apologies... I will stop now.  

Well this thread was never Bills related, so you are doing fine discussing what you want to discuss.  
 

And I certainly hope that is what emerges from this too, significant changes to the shady practices of insurers who can drop you or change your policy without recourse any time they feel the risks have increased.  So they are happy to take your very expensive premiums when the risks are lower and then pull the rug or alter your policy when the risk of having to honor the policy increase.  
 

It’s criminal and homeowners can’t stop it nor have any recourse or entitlement to a refund of all the money they paid into the policy.

 

If you are going to cancel a home owners policy when risks increase for the need for the policy, then the homeowner should be entitled to a full refund of all the money they paid into the policy when it wasn’t being used immediately upon termination of the policy or immediately upon altering of the policy to nullify coverage.  
 

Insurance companies have some of the biggest, most funded, and most powerful lobbyists in the politics though.  So common sense laws and swooping change feels like a long shot.  
 

 

[JP51]

28 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

Well this thread was never Bills related, so you are doing fine discussing what you want to discuss.  
 

And I certainly hope that is what emerges from this too, significant changes to the shady practices of insurers who can drop you or change your policy without recourse any time they feel the risks have increased.  So they are happy to take your very expensive premiums when the risks are lower and then pull the rug or alter your policy when the risk of having to honor the policy increase.  
 

It’s criminal and homeowners can’t stop it nor have any recourse or entitlement to a refund of all the money they paid into the policy.

 

If you are going to cancel a home owners policy when risks increase for the need for the policy, then the homeowner should be entitled to a full refund of all the money they paid into the policy when it wasn’t being used immediately upon termination of the policy or immediately upon altering of the policy to nullify coverage.  
 

Insurance companies have some of the biggest, most funded, and most powerful lobbyists in the politics though.  So common sense laws and swooping change feels like a long shot.  
 

 

I dont disagree, but I feel like if the government steps in and bails out like they did with banks and the auto industry we will see regulation... at minimum at a state level.. lord knows California isnt above regulation nor New York... but it could be federal... we shall see... fingers crossed. 

[Augie]

3 hours ago, JP51 said:

True. But try getting a mortgage with no insurance... Lenders typically require this... so not only would they have to self insure, but they would have to self fund the property as well...  its a terrible quandary... the only thing I think that can be done is the expansion of FEMA Flood Insurance to include Wild Fire zones... now we have the government involved even deeper in home owners insurance and for those that have paid Flood Ins thru FEMA its literally insane pricing... not sure what they are gonna do here... 

 

I’m shocked that lenders allowed these insurance policies as it effectively means they run the risk of having their collateral go up in smoke, literally. The bank needs to know what’s in the fine print as much as the homeowner. I have to believe that some heads will roll when they discover what a terrible failure this was. 

[JP51]

12 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

I’m shocked that lenders allowed these insurance policies as it effectively means they run the risk of having their collateral go up in smoke, literally. The bank needs to know what’s in the fine print as much as the homeowner. I have to believe that some heads will roll when they discover what a terrible failure this was. 

If the loans are treasured then yes... if they are sold on the open market to Fannie and Freddie etc... then the investors are gonna take a bath...  high likelihood though that if there were underwriting errors on the mortgage side they will end up being charged back to the bank... so if the investors buy "property must be fully insured" as a requirement and they are not you are right it is going back to the bank.... sad thing is that the real tragedy is that people died... lost everything and now are dealing with this... its just abominable... 

[Alphadawg7]

8 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

I’m shocked that lenders allowed these insurance policies as it effectively means they run the risk of having their collateral go up in smoke, literally. The bank needs to know what’s in the fine print as much as the homeowner. I have to believe that some heads will roll when they discover what a terrible failure this was. 

 

The issue is the insurance companies are cancelling or altering the policy after the mortgage has been underwritten and closed.  Once the loan is in servicing these things are less likely to be noticed until later, if at all.  Hopefully more regulation and oversight comes into play moving forward after the debacle of what is about to go do down happens.

[Augie]

5 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

The issue is the insurance companies are cancelling or altering the policy after the mortgage has been underwritten and closed.  Once the loan is in servicing these things are less likely to be noticed until later, if at all.  Hopefully more regulation and oversight comes into play moving forward after the debacle of what is about to go do down happens.

 

I don’t like the idea of bailing out any lenders/investors who were just too stupid or lazy to get things right. The policy should not be adjustable by the insurance company.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but obviously my heart goes out to the people and families who had a terrible event become even worse. 

 

.

Edited Friday at 07:38 PM by Augie

[Augie]

After Homestead, FL got decimated they changed all the building codes. Things became much more expensive to build. I’m familiar with what some of those code changes were, and I’m honestly curious about what might be implemented to mitigate this horror in the future. How can we do this better? 

 

EDIT: I’m not an insurance expert, but a friend had a house burn down and had to build new. Have replacement coverage! Material costs had spiked and it was a nightmare for him following lumber daily. Stuff you hope you never have to learn. 

 

.

Edited Saturday at 12:41 AM by Augie