top of page
Shasta Unfiltered FF-01_edited.png

SHASTA

Serving the North State with Honest News and Entertainment

UNFILTERED

  • Facebook
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Youtube

The High Cost of California - Coping with Disaster

Insuring for California Disasters

California's vulnerability to natural disasters like earthquakes and wildfires poses significant challenges for homeowners seeking adequate insurance coverage. While standard homeowners policies often exclude or limit protection against these perils, specialized programs like the California Earthquake Authority (CEA) and the Fair Access to Insurance Requirements (FAIR) Plan fill critical gaps. However, these systems highlight stark contrasts in stability, affordability, and risk management. This article explores the earthquake threat and the CEA's role, then contrasts it with the FAIR Plan's struggles amid regulatory and environmental pressures.


The Earthquake Threat and the CEA's Formation

California sits atop major fault lines, including the San Andreas Fault, making earthquakes a persistent hazard. The state experiences thousands of tremors annually, with the potential for catastrophic events like the 1906 San Francisco quake (estimated Magnitude 7.9) or the 1994 Northridge quake (Magnitude 6.7), which caused $20-40 billion in damage. Standard homeowners insurance excludes earthquake damage, leaving residents exposed without supplemental coverage.



The California Earthquake Authority (CEA) was established in 1996 by the California Legislature in response to the Northridge earthquake's aftermath, which bankrupted several insurers and led many to stop offering earthquake policies. As a not-for-profit, publicly managed but privately funded entity, the CEA provides residential earthquake insurance through participating private insurers, covering about two-thirds of California's earthquake policies. This structure revitalized the market by pooling risks and ensuring availability.


California Earthquake Authority's Solvency, Management, and Reinsurance

The California Earthquake Authority (CEA) is financially robust, with approximately $19-20 billion in claim-paying capacity as of mid-2025, supported by $900 million in annual premiums, investments, and risk transfer mechanisms. It maintains a conservative investment portfolio and has ratings like 'A-' from Fitch, reflecting strong financial flexibility and actuarial soundness. The organization targets a 1-in-350 to 1-in-500-year loss level, exceeding modeled losses from historical major quakes.


Well-managed with low operating expenses (under 6% of premiums by law), the CEA uses scientific risk assessments for pricing and has expanded options like retrofit discounts up to 25%. It secures substantial reinsurance, with $7.8-9.15 billion in risk transfer (including catastrophe bonds), renewed stably despite market pressures. This layered protection ensures solvency without taxpayer backing.


Affordability and Funding of CEA Premiums

CEA premiums are set using advanced seismic models, making them more affordable relative to private options in high-risk areas. For a typical $500,000 home, annual costs range from $500-$1,500 depending on location, age, and deductibles (5-25%), with tools like the CEA premium calculator aiding estimates. A 6.8% rate increase in 2026 averages $70 more for homeowners, but discounts for retrofits and flexible options keep it accessible for most in at-risk zones.


Strong funding from premiums and reinsurance has built reserves without frequent hikes, contrasting with profit-driven models. Take-up remains low (10-15%), but affordability has improved through scientific pricing and no profit motive.


CEA's Low Payouts and Capacity for Major Events

Since inception, the CEA has paid minimal claims—under $100 million total—due to no catastrophic quakes matching Northridge's scale. High deductibles and low policy penetration limit payouts, allowing reserves to grow. Yet, its $19-20 billion capacity could cover a repeat of the 1906 or 1994 catastrophic events fully, with post-event surcharges and assessments as backups.


Comparing to the FAIR Plan: A System Under Strain

Unlike the CEA's stability, the FAIR Plan—created in 1968 for fire coverage in high-risk areas—faces severe challenges. It provides basic fire insurance as a last resort but has ballooned to 668,609 policies and $724 billion exposure by late 2025, up 146% and 230% since 2022.


Pacific Palisades fire damage - Jan 2025
Pacific Palisades fire damage - Jan 2025

Drivers of the FAIR Plan's Necessity

Poor regulatory policies, notably Proposition 103 (1988), require prior approval for rate hikes, delaying adjustments amid rising wildfire risks and reinsurance costs. This has driven insurers like State Farm and Allstate to non-renew or exit, citing unprofitable conditions. Additionally, lax enforcement on utilities (e.g., PG&E's line maintenance) and poor forest management exacerbate fires, amplifying losses.


FAIR Plan's Financial Condition and 2025 Payouts

With $373.8 million in equity and $1.29 billion in cash as of late 2024, the FAIR Plan is vulnerable. The 2025 wildfires (Palisades, Eaton) triggered $3.5-4 billion in payouts, exhausting reserves and requiring a $1 billion assessment on insurers. It lacks capacity for another similar event, risking insolvency without reforms. The FAIR Plan secures reinsurance ($4.85 billion layers after $900 million retention), but it comes at a high cost, and co-insurance premiums strain the fund's finances.




Consequences to Consumers of High FAIR Premiums

FAIR premiums often cost homeowners $2,000-$10,000+ annually. For many they are untenable, with a proposed 35.8% hike in 2026. Mortgage-free owners increasingly elect to self-insure, redirecting funds to home hardening (e.g., defensible space). For these homeowners, they want to avoid putting false hope into a potentially insolvent plan. However, owners who have a mortgage must maintain coverage. In some cases, the exorbitant cost of FAIR plan insurance forces them to sell their homes. In at-risk areas, property values decline 10-20% due to insurance scarcity, exacerbating market instability.


The Need for FAIR Plan Overhaul and Broader Legislative Action

The FAIR Plan requires transformation to emulate the CEA's model: scientific pricing, robust reinsurance, and expanded coverage beyond fire. AB 1680 (Make It FAIR Act, introduced February 2026) proposes comprehensive reforms, including broader policies (e.g., theft, water), faster claims, climate risk assessments, and governance changes to enhance solvency and transparency. This could depopulate the plan, stabilize premiums, and better serve high-risk areas, mirroring the CEA's success.


In addition to overhauling the FAIR Plan, the California Legislature must address the broader insurance crisis by reforming regulatory policies to create a competitive market environment that attracts private insurers back to the state. This includes modernizing Proposition 103's rate approval process to incorporate catastrophe modeling, allow reinsurance cost pass-throughs, and mandate insurers to cover more policies in wildfire-distressed areas through initiatives like the Sustainable Insurance Strategy. Such changes would enable timely rate adjustments for profitability, encourage wildfire mitigation discounts, and reverse the exodus of carriers, ultimately reducing reliance on the FAIR Plan as a safety net. Without these reforms, the FAIR Plan's growth will continue, perpetuating high premiums and market instability.


In summary, the California Earthquake Authority (CEA) exemplifies effective disaster insurance, while the FAIR Plan's woes underscore the need for regulatory reform, better risk management, and structural overhaul to protect California's homeowners.


Sources:

bottom of page