Even with Trump’s upcoming Federal Leaf Raking Program for our national forests?!
There are a lot of places in California that I would assume are practically uninsurable against fire at this point.
As the risk of fire approaches 100%, the cost of insurance goes up to the replacement cost of the house (plus insurance operating cost). It doesn’t make sense as a product for anyone at that point, you’re just going to have to self-insure then.
Basically the same as offering flood insurance for places with flood risk approaching 100% (looking at you, Florida)
Speculating here but I imagine that would indirectly cause much more death than we already see in wildfire situations, due to people potentially staying home trying to abate damage however they can think of.
Nah, when the cost of insurance skyrockets, people lose their homes and leave. New buyers come in for a time, but eventually the only buyers are those that can pay cash. They tend to also have the means to leave, if not mitigate the fire risk directly through large scale construction. Same thing is happening in Florida now. Coastal houses that used to be a million dollars, but uninsurable, are being replaced with 5 to 25 million dollar houses that can withstand anything. Or entire neighborhoods get replaced with condos that look like they’re built to withstand anything, but it’s really a scam.
You think an insurance company cares?
Generally they tend toward collecting as much money as possible from people so in that regard, people dying isn’t good for business. But from an ethical standpoint, no, I wouldn’t think so. Do you?
Temporarily. Ultimately if you can’t get houses adequately insured, banks won’t lend money to invest in properties in areas prone to fires. Once they burn, they won’t be rebuilt.
Nature is healing!
