I wouldn’t be surprised if a majority of those casualties in the USA will be in Florida and California.
Many of the major insurance companies stopped issuing new home owners policies in those states because it was no longer profitable or very risky. IIRC, increasing housing costs and frequency of these events was the main reason they pulled out
Yup. The same people who deny science start paying attention once their own money becomes involved.
In Florida, the issue is rising sea levels. If you look at one of those interactive maps showing the effects of a rising sea level, you’ll notice that all of southern Florida is at risk of major flooding.
In California, wildfires are the problem. As the atmosphere gets warmer and rainfall becomes unreliable, forests get drier. Fires will become bigger, spread faster, and be even more frequent.
Neither state will be a profitable place for home insurance companies.
In Florida the issue has little to do with rising sea levels at the moment. There’s a Bad Faith law that makes the insurance companies responsible for the policyholders legal bills if the decision increases the amount of the settlement. There are a lot of lawyers that take cases and only bill if they win, and if they do win they bill a lot. There is also a lot of insurance fraud in Florida, both of which drove up the legal costs to insurers. Catastrophic events are more impactful to insurers in Florida since Florida has passed a law preventing international reinsurers from being used. So when a hurricane hits rather than having the costs borne by a larger number of insurers across the globe, only US insurers will be spending money on the catastrophe. This has pushed many insurers to insolvency.
In California rate increases could allow insurers to keep up with rising costs. Note that the percent of homes affected by wildfires is only somewhat up over the past roughly 20 years, the real problem is the increase in severity due to rising property values and insurers being unable to raise rates due to Prop 103. Prop 103 allows for public interest groups to have hearings with the DOI and the insurance company to determine if a rate increase of 7% or higher is justified, and the insurance company must pay the legal costs of the public interest group(s). The lawyers who lobbied for this law have set up a public interest group and start hearing whenever an insurer tries to increase rates at 7% or more. Said group tries to drag out the hearings as long as possible, since it’s free money.
It’s largely legislative changes that have made insurance unprofitable in those states. Florida’s bad faith law and banning of international reinsurers have both hurt the industry a lot. California has had wildfires for a long time and their frequency hasn’t increased much over time.
I left a more detailed comment elsewhere in this thread if you’re interested.
Because when ice melts it turns to water. When lots of ice (the arctic) melts, it turns to water (the ocean). The problem is not only does this raise the sea level (effectively causing the coast to recede inward) but it causes more common and powerful natural disasters which, in turn, wreak havoc on specific parts of the country.
Which states typically face the worst natural disasters? Florida (hurricanes) and California (wildfires). When somebody’s house gets blown or burned away, insurance is supposed to cover the cost. But what happens when the insurance company spends more on paying out claims than it brings in in revenue? It goes out of business.
To avoid going out of business, these insurance companies are looking at market projections that use data attempting to predict future risks, or future likelyhood that they will have to pay out to their clients. Since climate change is only going to make natural disasters more severe, but ALSO more common, the companies are (intelligently) no longer pursuing business sin these states because it they are going to pay out more than they take in. If they stay, they would lose money.
Fair enough. Just speculating at this point, but I would think that, since it’s rather difficult to just up and move to another state, people are going to find that they can’t insure their homes, or if they can, they would be for exorbitant rates.
Banks require home insurance for a mortgage, so if all the insurance companies start pulling out, you’re going to have large swathes of people who can’t find or can’t afford their insurance. I’m not sure what happens to your mortgage when you lose/can’t find somebody to insure you, though, I imagine it’s nothing good.
So if they have nobody willing to insure them (not there yet, but if all insurers start pulling out…) You’ll have swathes of people who can’t insure their homes and may go into foreclosure. Homelessness increases, and the homeless are some of the most vulnerable people in the country, so perhaps that’s what they were thinking?
It’s certainly going to cause significant financial hardships for those states at the very least, though how climate change’s impact on the insurance industry SPECIFICALLY increases deaths, I am not sure.
Insurance policies are short-term and climate change is going to take longer to really hit. Climate change isn’t why but rather legislative changes. I’ve left a more detailed comment elsewhere in this thread if you’re interested.
Insurance companies don’t want to offer homeowners insurance in places where mass destruction is likely. It’s just not profitable.
Like other companies, an insurance company generally wants as many customers as possible. If an area is considered so potentially dangerous (and therefore unprofitable) that home insurers are willing to turn business away, it may be too potentially dangerous to live in at all.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a majority of those casualties in the USA will be in Florida and California.
Many of the major insurance companies stopped issuing new home owners policies in those states because it was no longer profitable or very risky. IIRC, increasing housing costs and frequency of these events was the main reason they pulled out
Yup. The same people who deny science start paying attention once their own money becomes involved.
In Florida, the issue is rising sea levels. If you look at one of those interactive maps showing the effects of a rising sea level, you’ll notice that all of southern Florida is at risk of major flooding.
In California, wildfires are the problem. As the atmosphere gets warmer and rainfall becomes unreliable, forests get drier. Fires will become bigger, spread faster, and be even more frequent.
Neither state will be a profitable place for home insurance companies.
In Florida the issue has little to do with rising sea levels at the moment. There’s a Bad Faith law that makes the insurance companies responsible for the policyholders legal bills if the decision increases the amount of the settlement. There are a lot of lawyers that take cases and only bill if they win, and if they do win they bill a lot. There is also a lot of insurance fraud in Florida, both of which drove up the legal costs to insurers. Catastrophic events are more impactful to insurers in Florida since Florida has passed a law preventing international reinsurers from being used. So when a hurricane hits rather than having the costs borne by a larger number of insurers across the globe, only US insurers will be spending money on the catastrophe. This has pushed many insurers to insolvency.
In California rate increases could allow insurers to keep up with rising costs. Note that the percent of homes affected by wildfires is only somewhat up over the past roughly 20 years, the real problem is the increase in severity due to rising property values and insurers being unable to raise rates due to Prop 103. Prop 103 allows for public interest groups to have hearings with the DOI and the insurance company to determine if a rate increase of 7% or higher is justified, and the insurance company must pay the legal costs of the public interest group(s). The lawyers who lobbied for this law have set up a public interest group and start hearing whenever an insurer tries to increase rates at 7% or more. Said group tries to drag out the hearings as long as possible, since it’s free money.
It’s largely legislative changes that have made insurance unprofitable in those states. Florida’s bad faith law and banning of international reinsurers have both hurt the industry a lot. California has had wildfires for a long time and their frequency hasn’t increased much over time.
I left a more detailed comment elsewhere in this thread if you’re interested.
How does lack of homeowners insurance translate to excess climate change deaths? Serious question
Because when ice melts it turns to water. When lots of ice (the arctic) melts, it turns to water (the ocean). The problem is not only does this raise the sea level (effectively causing the coast to recede inward) but it causes more common and powerful natural disasters which, in turn, wreak havoc on specific parts of the country.
Which states typically face the worst natural disasters? Florida (hurricanes) and California (wildfires). When somebody’s house gets blown or burned away, insurance is supposed to cover the cost. But what happens when the insurance company spends more on paying out claims than it brings in in revenue? It goes out of business.
To avoid going out of business, these insurance companies are looking at market projections that use data attempting to predict future risks, or future likelyhood that they will have to pay out to their clients. Since climate change is only going to make natural disasters more severe, but ALSO more common, the companies are (intelligently) no longer pursuing business sin these states because it they are going to pay out more than they take in. If they stay, they would lose money.
Edit: “Wreak” havoc, not “Reek”.
Where’s the part that kills people tho?
Original OP said the homeowners insurance debacle in FL is going to contribute to the climate change deaths mention in the article.
I’m trying to understand how lack of property insurance results in excess deaths
Fair enough. Just speculating at this point, but I would think that, since it’s rather difficult to just up and move to another state, people are going to find that they can’t insure their homes, or if they can, they would be for exorbitant rates.
Banks require home insurance for a mortgage, so if all the insurance companies start pulling out, you’re going to have large swathes of people who can’t find or can’t afford their insurance. I’m not sure what happens to your mortgage when you lose/can’t find somebody to insure you, though, I imagine it’s nothing good.
So if they have nobody willing to insure them (not there yet, but if all insurers start pulling out…) You’ll have swathes of people who can’t insure their homes and may go into foreclosure. Homelessness increases, and the homeless are some of the most vulnerable people in the country, so perhaps that’s what they were thinking?
It’s certainly going to cause significant financial hardships for those states at the very least, though how climate change’s impact on the insurance industry SPECIFICALLY increases deaths, I am not sure.
Insurance policies are short-term and climate change is going to take longer to really hit. Climate change isn’t why but rather legislative changes. I’ve left a more detailed comment elsewhere in this thread if you’re interested.
They insurance price will need to increase in these new risk zoones.
Insurance companies don’t want to offer homeowners insurance in places where mass destruction is likely. It’s just not profitable.
Like other companies, an insurance company generally wants as many customers as possible. If an area is considered so potentially dangerous (and therefore unprofitable) that home insurers are willing to turn business away, it may be too potentially dangerous to live in at all.
We’re not underinsured because of climate change per se in FL, it’s because every storm results in a ton of fraudulent claims.
Again, how does lack of property insurance kill people?