State wants to force insurers to reward homeowners for fireproofing homes
When Ashley Raveche and her husband bought their home in Mill Valley, they thought they were doing everything right. The 1,300-square-foot house already had vents with screens that make it harder for embers to get in and a tar and gravel roof, toprated for fire safety. They installed double-paned windows, which are less likely to explode under extreme heat. They cut down four trees within 10 feet of their house. They kept the gutter and roof clear, and the local fire marshal performed an annual inspection.
But their efforts — totaling more than $10,000, by Raveche's estimation — weren't enough to insure their home in Marin County. In February, their insurance company said it wouldn't renew the policy because the “risk is unacceptable.”
“I panicked,” she said. “I was just like, `This is too much, we are doing absolutely everything we possibly can.'”
It was the second time an insurance company had declined to renew her home insurance coverage in five years, she said.
In response to wildfires that have blazed across the state, some Californians have spent thousands of dollars trying to fireproof their homes — often at the urging of state and local officials — to reduce their risk of burning. But some have confronted an unpleasant reality: Taking those steps doesn't prevent their premiums from ballooning, or keep them from being dropped by their insurance company.
Now the California Department of Insurance has proposed new rules that would require insurance companies to take homeowners' preventative steps into account when setting premiums. The rules would also require companies to be more transparent about how they gauge a home's wildfire risk.
But some consumer groups are ringing alarms about what they see as loopholes that would leave homeowners stuck, like Raveche, with a fire-hardened home and a non-renewal letter. Insurance industry trade groups, on the other hand, worry that the rules are getting ahead of science, and that transparency requirements would expose intellectual property.
The agency plans to have the rules finalized this summer.
The proposed rules, rolled out in February, require insurance companies to do several things, including:
• Make the models or tools they use to assess wildfire risk public, and require that companies send individual policyholders their wildfire risk scores on a regular basis
• Explain to policyholders what specific factors influenced each consumer's score, what they could do to lower their score, and how much they can expect to see their premium go down if they take the actions outlined by the insurance company
• When setting prices, insurers would have to take into account whether a homeowner or commercial property owner has reduced a property's wildfire risk by taking specified steps, including clearing vegetation from under decks and installing fireresistant vents
• When setting prices, insurers would have to take into account whether a home is in one of three types of fire risk-reduction communities, such as Firewise.
The state Department of Insurance also proposed giving policyholders the right to appeal their wildfire risk scores.
Part of the goal is to provide incentives to more people to protect their properties from wildfires. “Money is tight for most people,” said Amy Bach, executive director of United Policyholders, a consumer group. “If I have a choice between spending money on taking out my favorite tree, and, like, buying