It will be interesting to see the reaction of home mortgage lenders. It may be that coastal living and the forest life will only be possible for wealthy cash buyers in the future. Oklahoma & Texas residents will need to burrow underground.
The strong and confident insurance industry is acting on climate change in a way that feeble politicians dare not tread.
intercst
About time!
Highly survivable structures have long existed and been understood. They do cost more, sometimes a lot more. So cut your McMansions and commercial structures in half, design them to be far more resilient and energy efficient and soundproof and delightful as opposed to impressive (and oppressive), and (keeping in mind the high liklihood that the coastlines will move inland a lot) you can live happily and safely with a solid investment.
Or throw your money into the oceans and woodland embers and ashes. I have twice been inside well designed structures while terrifying fires passed over them, and once in a purposefully built beach home during a minor (only a “1”) hurricane in Florida. This can be done!
david fb
This is Capitalism at its core. The insurance companies have identified the massive risk they are taking when they insure homes on the coast, or deep inside tinder dry forests. Their responsibility is to their shareholders and owners, so they cut their risk. We can’t be having Socialistic behaviors by American insurance companies, and the strong and proud, bootstrap pulling home owners in these risky areas surely do not want a government handout in order to mitigate the risks that they are taking by living there.
I’ve never been prouder to be an American /sarcasm
Auto Owner’s added a new limitation in my insurance on my condo, this year. They no longer insure against ground subsidence under the condo. Doesn’t matter to me, because the building is covered by insurance paid by the condo group. My insurance only covers the contents. I suspect however, that that new limitation is also on all homeowner’s policies, so folks better hope a sink hole doesn’t open up near their foundation, as they will be out of luck.
…must not burden the “JCs”.
Steve
Same old, same old. Insurance company saves money by excluding coverage for largest, most common claims. You get less coverage for your money. Unless you are willing to pay extra.
I would not expect the most common claims to be the most expensive. Do you have some data on that?
DB2
My condo insurance premium escalated from $260 last year to $300 this year, in spite of the reduced coverage.
How did I end up with Auto Owner’s insurance on my condo? I initially bought insurance from the same company that the condo association insures the buildings with. I switched, a number of years ago, because that company excluded loss from water intrusion into the basement, another one of those extra pages slipped in with the annual bill.
I no longer have Auto Owner’s coverage for my car however. One year, I noticed they slipped an extra charge on the bill for coverage of a cell phone stolen from inside the car. I never asked for that. I would not ask for that, because I don’t have a cell phone. Told them that. They denied it was a new, unauthorized, charge, I told them to bite me, and insured with Flo instead.
If present trends continue, we will be required to buy insurance that covers nothing.
Steve
I don’t. But it is common to find new exclusions on your home owners policy when it comes up for annual renewal.
Exclusions are very common in insurance policies. You can often insure exclusions but at much higher rates because the risks are higher. In an ideal situation premiums only cover claims and expenses. Profit comes from investing the float.
Price war in insurance are deadly for the insurance companies. Buffett bought GEICO because it was run very conservatively.
The Captain
I do not “burden” them at all.
This is excellent for wild life. Leaves animal habitats undeveloped.
Means larger cities as our population increases.
Never ask for wages for your work? Never ask for goods or services for the prices you pay?
Steve
Never pay them money without them doing work. They have to EARN IT.
To hear the “JCs” tell it, there is no “earn”. Paying anyone, anything, is a “burden” and a “job killer”.
Steve
Then don’t pay them because they do NOT “earn” it.
background: RS store manager’s bonus, which constituted the bulk of compensation, because the manager’s hourly wage was barely above minimum, was based on the profitability of the store. The company only paid part of that profitability bonus up front, and the percentage paid during Christmas was smaller than the other months. The balance due to the manager was paid at the end of the fiscal year, if the manager was still with the company. If the manager had moved on, the company pocketed the money.
At the annual manager’s meeting one year, during the management breakout session, one manager got up and asked “would it be possible to pay a larger percentage of the bonus when we earn it?” Bernie thundered “you haven’t earned anything, until I say you have”.
A couple years later, RS took a cleaver to the bonus plan, so that managers took a 30-40% pay cut, to run the same store and make the same profit for the company. My DM’s comment when the mangers started griping was “you guys are too fat and happy.”
Seems what the “JC” thinks is “earning” is a movable target, usually moving in the “JC’s” favor.
Steve
A little boost here…Who are the “JCs”?
“JC”, is “job creator”. (L&Ses) are the “leaders and statesmen” in the Michigan capital, who spent decades taking away from working people, to ease the burdens of the “JCs”.
Steve
Increasingly, the JC’s and L&S’s are becoming ever more obviously mere AI’s focused solely on increasing profits, and those only within a five year time horizon and tell with anything longer term. The people do not matter, only the algorithms they implement, and those are visionless, tasteless, and more and more often heedlessly and headlessly destructive.
david fb
I don’t think I ever saw the George C Scott version, but he certainly embodies the ideal of the modern “JC”: predatory business practices as well as unwillingness to part with a farthing for “wokie” causes.
