Homeowners outraged after insurers abandon disaster zones without warning: 'We need to maintain access to affordable insurance'
As wildfires worsen across the Western United States, homeowners are facing another threat: being dropped by their insurance providers.
As Oregon Public Broadcasting reported in late March, two state lawmakers — a Democrat and a Republican — are demanding that major insurance companies pause use of internal wildfire risk maps to deny or cancel policies.
Senators Anthony Broadman and Mike McLane sent a joint letter to State Farm, Allstate, Liberty Mutual, and other major insurers, making a bipartisan request that the companies stop using their own private wildfire risk maps to drop homeowners' policies, at least until January 2026.
"Constituents contact us with increasing frequency to say that they have been 'dropped' or not renewed by one of you," the senators wrote, according to OPB.
The lawmakers, who described this system as "rigged," say these decisions are often based on data gathered by companies like Verisk. Verisk uses drones to assess risk from above, rather than on-the-ground assessments.
Some states are now considering restrictions on insurers' use of drone footage to make policy decisions. Delaware recently established some new regulations regarding the practice, the Delaware News Journal reported last month.
Meanwhile, a committee of Oregon lawmakers from both major parties unanimously endorsed Senate Bill 83, which would repeal the state's official wildfire hazard map, according to local news outlet KGW. Critics say the map fails to accurately reflect individual risk and even has the potential to devalue property.
As dirty energy sources are burned and trap heat in our atmosphere, rising global temperatures are fueling more frequent and more destructive wildfires, floods, and hurricanes. In response, some insurance companies are cutting coverage, especially in high-risk areas.
But in Oregon, insurers have still managed to turn a profit. In 2023, companies paid out just 52 cents in claims for every dollar collected in premiums, even as rates rose by nearly 11% over the previous year, according to the Consumer Federation of America.
Broadman and McLane argue that using undisclosed, private risk models rather than transparent and standardized ones leaves policyholders in the dark and at risk of losing critical coverage with little warning. In the event of a disaster, homeowners often rely on insurance to help them navigate property loss and financial hardship while rebuilding their lives.
Should the government be allowed to restrict how much water we use?
Definitely
Only during major droughts
No way
I'm not sure
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
"This isn't about denying insurers the ability to assess risk — it's about making sure that assessment is based on actual, individualized data, not abstract scoring models," McLane said in the press release announcing the joint letter. "We need to maintain access to affordable insurance for rural and fire-prone communities while promoting a competitive and responsible market."
This kind of corporate behavior fits into a broader pattern: power structures and business practices that ignore the role of burning dirty energy sources in driving extreme weather, while shifting the consequences onto consumers.
Climate advocates are calling for stronger oversight of the insurance industry and more transparency around risk data. Meanwhile, SB 83, which would officially scrap Oregon's map, has been passed by the Senate as of late April and now heads to the House, per the Statesman Journal.
Next, according to April reporting from OPB, state lawmakers and advocates say they need to find new funding strategies to pay for wildfire prevention and risk mitigation after federal cuts that have impacted much of the country.
Groups like Firewise USA and the Insurance Information Institute offer tools to help homeowners reduce wildfire risk and advocate for fair coverage.
Nationally, legislation like the Wildfire Defense Act and efforts to reform the insurance market could offer longer-term solutions. But until insurance practices are reined in, experts warn that more homeowners may be left without a real safety net.
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
31 minutes ago
What's in the latest version of Trump's big bill now before the Senate
WASHINGTON -- At some 940-pages, the legislation is a sprawling collection of tax breaks, spending cuts and other Republican priorities, including new money for national defense and deportations. Now it's up to Congress to decide whether President Donald Trump's signature's domestic policy package will become law. Trump told Republicans, who hold majority power in the House and Senate, to skip their holiday vacations and deliver the bill by the Fourth of July. Senators were working through the weekend to pass the bill and send it back to the House for a final vote. Democrats are united against it. Here's the latest on what's in the bill. There could be changes as lawmakers negotiate. Republicans say the bill is crucial because there would be a massive tax increase after December when tax breaks from Trump's first term expire. The legislation contains roughly $3.8 trillion in tax cuts. The existing tax rates and brackets would become permanent under the bill. It temporarily would add new tax breaks that Trump campaigned on: no taxes on tips, overtime pay or some automotive loans, along with a bigger $6,000 deduction in the Senate draft for older adults who earn no more than $75,000 a year. It would boost the $2,000 child tax credit to $2,200 under the Senate proposal. Families at lower income levels would not see the full amount. A cap on state and local deductions, called SALT, would quadruple to $40,000 for five years. It's a provision important to New York and other high tax states, though the House wanted it to last for 10 years. There are scores of business-related tax cuts. The wealthiest households would see a $12,000 increase from the legislation, which would cost the poorest people $1,600 a year, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analysis of the House's version. Middle-income taxpayers would see a tax break of $500 to $1,500, the CBO said. The bill would provide some $350 billion for Trump's border and national security agenda, including $46 billion for the U.S.-Mexico border wall and $45 billion for 100,000 migrant detention facility beds, as he aims to fulfill his promise of the largest mass deportation operation in U.S. history. Money would go for hiring 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, with $10,000 signing bonuses and a surge of Border Patrol officers, as well. The goal is to deport some 1 million people per year. The homeland security secretary would have a new $10 billion fund for grants for states that help with federal immigration enforcement and deportation actions. The attorney general would have $3.5 billion for a similar fund, known as Bridging Immigration-related Deficits Experienced Nationwide, or BIDEN, referring to former Democratic President Joe Biden. To help pay for it all, immigrants would face various new fees, including when seeking asylum protections. For the Pentagon, the bill would provide billions for ship building, munitions systems, and quality of life measures for servicemen and women, as well as $25 billion for the development of the Golden Dome missile defense system. The Defense Department would have $1 billion for border security. To help partly offset the lost tax revenue and new spending, Republicans aim to cut back some long-running government programs: Medicaid, food stamps, green energy incentives and others. It's essentially unraveling the accomplishments of the past two Democratic presidents, Biden and Barack Obama. Republicans argue they are trying to rightsize the safety net programs for the population they were initially designed to serve, mainly pregnant women, the disabled and children, and root out what they describe as waste, fraud and abuse. The package includes new 80-hour-a-month work requirements for many adults receiving Medicaid and food stamps, including older people up to age 65. Parents of children 14 and older would have to meet the program's work requirements. There's also a proposed new $35 co-payment that can be charged to patients using Medicaid services. Some 80 million people rely on Medicaid, which expanded under Obama's Affordable Care Act, and 40 million use the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. Most already work, according to analysts. All told, the CBO estimates that under the House-passed bill, at least 10.9 million more people would go without health coverage and 3 million more would not qualify for food stamps. The Senate proposes a $25 billion Rural Hospital Transformation Fund to help offset reduced Medicaid dollars. It's a new addition, intended to win over holdout GOP senators and a coalition of House Republicans warning that the proposed Medicaid provider tax cuts would hurt rural hospitals. Both the House and Senate bills propose a dramatic rollback of the Biden-era green energy tax breaks for electric vehicles. They also would phase out or terminate the various production and investment tax credits companies use to stand up wind, solar and other renewable energy projects. In total, cuts to Medicaid, food stamps and green energy programs would be expected to produce at least $1.5 trillion in savings. A number of extra provisions reflect other GOP priorities. The House and Senate both have a new children's savings program, called Trump Accounts, with a potential $1,000 deposit from the Treasury. The Senate provided $40 million to establish Trump's long-sought 'National Garden of American Heroes.' There's a new excise tax on university endowments, restrictions on the development of artificial intelligence and blocks on transgender surgeries. A $200 tax on gun silencers and short-barreled rifles and shotguns was eliminated. One provision bars money to family planning providers, namely Planned Parenthood, while $88 million is earmarked for a pandemic response accountability committee. Billions would go for the Artemis moon mission and for exploration to Mars. The bill would deter states from regulating artificial intelligence by linking certain federal AI infrastructure money to maintaining a freeze. Seventeen Republican governors asked GOP leaders to drop the provision. Also, the interior secretary would be directed to sell certain Bureau of Land Management acreage to provide for housing. The sale of public lands would cover at least 600,000 acres and up to 1.2 million acres, according to a projection from the Center for Western Priorities, a conservation group. Altogether, keeping the existing tax breaks and adding the new ones is expected to cost $3.8 trillion over the decade, the CBO says in its analysis of the House bill. An analysis of the Senate draft is pending. The CBO estimates the House-passed package would add $2.4 trillion to the nation's deficits over the decade. Or not, depending on how one does the math. Senate Republicans are proposing a unique strategy of not counting the existing tax breaks as a new cost because those breaks are already 'current policy.' Senators say the Senate Budget Committee chairman has the authority to set the baseline for the preferred approach. Under the Senate GOP view, the tax provisions cost $441 billion, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. Democrats and others say this is 'magic math' that obscures the true costs of the GOP tax breaks. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget puts the Senate tally at $4.2 trillion over the decade.
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
At Supreme Court, steady wins for conservative states and Trump's claims of executive power
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court term that ended Friday will not be remembered for blockbuster rulings like those recent years that struck down the right to abortion and college affirmative action. The justices scaled back their docket this year and spent much of their energy focused on deciding fast-track appeals from President Trump. His administration's lawyers complained too many judges were standing in the way of Trump's agenda. On Friday, the court's conservatives agreed to rein in district judges, a procedural victory for Trump. What's been missing so far, however, is a clear ruling on whether the president has abided by the law or overstepped his authority in the U.S. Constitution. On the final two days of term, the court's conservative majority provided big wins for Republican-leaning states, religious parents and Trump. The justices gave states more authority to prohibit medical treatments for transgender teens, to deny Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood clinics and to enforce age-verification laws for online porn sites. Each came with the familiar 6-3 split, with the Republican appointees siding with the GOP-led states, while the Democratic appointees dissented. These rulings, while significant, were something short of nationwide landmark decisions — celebrated victories for the Republican half of the nation but having no direct or immediate effect on Democratic-led states. California lawmakers are not likely to pass measures to restrict gender-affirming care or to prohibit women on Medicaid from obtaining birth control, pregnancy testing or medical screenings at a Planned Parenthood clinic. The new decisions echoed the Dobbs ruling three years ago that struck down Roe vs. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion. As the conservative justices noted, the decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health did not outlaw abortion nationwide. However, it did allow conservative states to do so. Since then, 17 Republican-led states in the South and Midwest have adopted new laws to prohibit most or all abortions. On this front, the court's decisions reflect a 'federalism,' or states-rights style of conservatism, that was dominant in decades past under President Reagan and two of the court's conservative leaders, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Both were Arizona Republicans (and in O'Connor's case, a former state legislator) who came to the court with that view that Washington holds too much power and wields too much control over states and local governments. With the nation sharply divided along partisan lines, today's conservative court could be praised or defended for freeing states to make different choices on the 'culture wars.' The other big winner so far this year has been Trump and his broad claims of executive power. Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has asserted he has total authority to run federal agencies, cut their spending and fire most of their employees, all without the approval of Congress, which created and funded the agencies. He has also claimed the authority to impose tariffs of any amount on any country and also change his mind a few days later. He has dispatched National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles against the wishes of the governor and the mayor. He has asserted he can punish universities and law firms. He has claimed he can revise by executive order the 14th Amendment and its birthright citizenship clause. So far, the Supreme Court has not ruled squarely on Trump's broad assertions of power. But the justices have granted a series of emergency appeals from Trump's lawyers and set aside lower court orders that blocked his initiatives from taking effect. The theme has been that judges are out of line, not the president. Friday's ruling limiting nationwide injunctions set out that view in a 26-page opinion. The conservatives agreed that some judges have overstepped their authority by ruling broadly based on a single lawsuit. The justices have yet to rule on whether the president has overstepped his power. Justice Amy Coney Barrett summed up the dispute in a revealing comment responding to a dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. 'Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,' she wrote. Missing from all this is the earlier strain of conservatism that opposed concentrated power in Washington — and in this instance, in one person. Last year offered a hint of what was to come. A year ago, the court ended its term by declaring the president is immune from being prosecuted for his official acts while in the White House. That decision, in Trump vs. United States, shielded the former and soon-to-be president from the criminal law. The Constitution does not mention any such immunity for ex-presidents charged with crimes, but Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said a shield of immunity was necessary to 'enable the the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution.' Since returning to the White House, Trump has not been accused of exercising 'undue caution.' Instead, he appears to have viewed the court's opinion as confirming his unchecked power as the nation's chief executive. Trump advisors say that because the president was elected, he has a mandate and the authority to put his priorities and policies into effect. But the Supreme Court's conservatives did not take that view when President Biden took office promising to take action on climate change and to reduce the burden of student loan debt. In both areas, the Roberts court ruled that the Biden administration had exceeded its authority under the laws passed by Congress. Away from Washington, the most significant decision from this term may be Friday's ruling empowering parents. The six justices on the right ruled parents have a right to remove their children from certain public school classes that offend their religious beliefs. They objected to new storybooks and lessons for young children with LGBTQ+ themes. In recent years, the court, led by Roberts, has championed the 'free exercise' of religion that is protected by the 1st Amendment. In a series of decisions, the court has exempted Catholic schools and charities from laws or regulations on, for example, providing contraceptives to employees. Friday's ruling in a Maryland case extended that religious liberty right into the schools and ruled for Muslim and Catholic parents who objected to new LGBTQ+-themed storybooks. At first, the school board said parents could have their young children 'opt out' of those classes. But when too many parents took the offer, the school board rescinded it. The clash between progressive educators and conservative parents reached the court when the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty appealed on behalf of the parents. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the parents believed the books and stories offended their religious beliefs, and he ordered school authorities to 'to notify them in advance whenever one of the books in question is to be used ... and allow them to have their children excused from that instruction.' This decision may have a broader impact than any from this term because it empowers parents nationwide. But it too has limits. It does not require the schools to change their curriculum and their lessons or remove any books from the shelves. The conservatives fell one vote short in a case that could have brought about a far-reaching change in American schools. Split 4 to 4, the justices could not rule to uphold the nation's first publicly funded, church-run charter school. In the past, Roberts had voted to allow students to use state tuition grants in religious schools, but he appeared uncertain about using tax money to operate a church-run school. But that question is almost certain to return to the court. Barrett stepped aside from the Oklahoma case heard in April because friends and former colleagues at the Notre Dame Law School had filed the appeal. But in a future case, she could participate and cast a deciding vote.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Schumer to force reading of 1,000-page GOP mega bill, delaying it by half a day
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) told Democratic senators Saturday that he will force the clerks to read the 1,000-page Republican megabill on the Senate floor once Republicans vote to proceed to the legislation, a procedural act of defiance that will take an estimated 12 hours and delay final passage of President Trump's agenda by half a day — at least. Schumer told his caucus to prepare to force a full reading of the bill, according to a Democratic source familiar with the internal discussion over floor strategy. The question is whether Senate GOP leaders will force the clerks to read the bill late into Saturday night and early Sunday morning to complete the time-and energy-consuming task or whether staff will get some time to sleep before the Senate is expected to launch into a multi-hour series of votes known as a vote-a-rama. Senate Republicans were anticipating that Schumer might force a reading of the bill as an act of protest. This is a developing story.
