State Farm will discontinue coverage for 72,000 houses and apartments in California starting this summer, the insurance giant said this week, nine months after announcing it would not issue new home policies in the state

The Illinois-based company, California’s largest insurer, cited soaring costs, the increasing risk of catastrophes like wildfires and outdated regulations as reasons it won’t renew the policies on 30,000 houses and 42,000 apartments, the Bay Area News Group reported Thursday.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    What climate catastrophe-free area of the country does State Farm think it will make sense to still insure homes in?

    Also, I thought they were like a good neighbor.

    • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      8 months ago

      Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there” means that they resemble a good neighbor only insofar as both share the attribute of existence.

    • Corkyskog
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      8 months ago

      Non-coastal new England is pretty safe. No earthquakes, few hurricane effects, almost no tornadoes, tends to stay damp enough and has enough old deciduous growth, where forest fires aren’t a big issue.

      I am sure there are other places that are low risk as well.

      • Kalysta@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        And if the entire population of the country moves there due to insurance pulling out of everywhere else, non coastal new england will turn into San Francisco.

        This isn’t the answer you think it is.

        • Corkyskog
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          I was just answering the simple question, not providing a solution to a problem.

        • Zipitydew
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          No place is 100% safe. Around the great lakes is probably one of the best places to be going forward though.

    • festus@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Part of the problem is that many of the states where insurance companies are leaving have rules that limit what they can charge. That sounds good in principle, but with climate change causing these disasters to happen more often the insurance companies are bleeding money. Ultimately insurance as an industry can’t work if you keep having losses, and if you can’t increase prices to cope then you have no choice but to withdraw.

      I’ve sure State Farm is happy to cover catastrophe-prone areas, but only if they won’t lose money on average.