CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2024 OR THEREAFTER
BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
“LARA, NEWSOM APPEAR BENT ON ENRICHING
INSURANCE COMPANIES”
From the way they’re acting, it’s clear Gov. Gavin Newsom and
state Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara believe they have no choice other
than caving in to insurance industry blackmail.
Or maybe it’s extortion. Either way, these two supposedly
strong and independent officials have been working steadily this year to enrich
insurance companies.
When State Farm announced a 30 percent hike in property
insurance rates, neither elected official blinked. The same when Allstate and
others announced even larger rate increases.
Newsom, at least, has the grace to gripe about inflation at
the same time he’s helping cause it. Lara doesn’t even mention the fact that
astronomically higher homeowner and business property insurance premiums create
burdens on individual citizens just as much as seemingly unending increases in
grocery prices.
Here’s the nature of the blackmail/extortion these men face:
Insurance companies are steadily canceling more and more property insurance
policies in known wildfire areas because, they say, the risks of writing or
continuing that kind of coverage in those places are simply too high.
Never mind that they have always in the past written such
policies, making strictly local price increases when risks and replacement
costs rose. If they now won’t write insurance, homeowners are forced to turn to
the state Fair Plan, California’s insurer of last resort, where rates are much
higher than even the companies charge.
Newsom, who pushed unsuccessfully over the summer for a new
law to greatly speed up processing rate increases, lost out when his plan went
nowhere in the state Assembly and Senate.
But…not to worry, Gavin. No sooner had that proposal died
than Lara proposed virtually the same thing, but as a regulation, not a law.
The essence is the same. The consequences for homeowners and businesses would
be the same.
Neither Newsom nor Lara needed to react to insurance company
blackmail (“We’ll stop writing any policies in California if we don’t get our
way.) by simply caving in. They could have told the companies something like
this: If you don’t sell property insurance here, then you won’t be selling any
car insurance or life insurance or coverage on luxury items, either.
That’s called linkage, and California had it for earthquake
insurance until the aftermath of the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. Until then,
companies that did not sell quake insurance couldn’t sell other coverage in
this state.
But then-Insurance Commissioner Chuck
Quackenbush set a precedent for caving in to the companies. Rather than
fighting back, he lobbied the Legislature to create the California Earthquake
Authority, which has had the good fortune to see its reserves pile up over 30
years in which the state saw no urban quakes of magnitude above 6.0 on the
Richter Scale.
The latest in Lara’s series of moves aiming to placate and
bring more profit to insurance companies is his attempt to bring Newsom’s
rate-hike speedup plan to reality via the back door.
Primarily because of public hearings aimed at letting
consumer groups shed light on rate increase requests, it usually takes some
months to get a premium increase through. When rate hikes have been forced
through faster, with only sketchy hearings, the companies have usually gotten
about 97 percent of what they ask. But with full hearings, according to the
Consumer Watchdog advocacy group, that percentage has been cut by about 25
percent.
Even though the rate-making process takes about the same time
with or without full hearings, Consumer Watchdog claims hearings have cut the
prices paid by customers just over $6 billion over the last few years.
The group says the 1988 Proposition 103 – which also made the
insurance commissioner an elected post – requires full-scale hearings. Consumer
Watchdog’s founder, Harvey Rosenfield, wrote that initiative.
The bottom line: While Lara says “We do not have the luxury
of time” in processing rate increases, reality suggests following the full
procedures its author says are required by Prop. 103. This saves consumers
money while not damaging the companies. Why, then, would Lara be trying to
squelch that process if he’s really acting for consumers and not for the
companies whose excesses he’s supposed to rein in?
-30-
Email
Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough:
The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch
It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias
columns, visit www.californiafocus.net
No comments:
Post a Comment