Subterms
Deciding where to live has always been a high-stakes financial decision, but a changing climate makes it even more critical. Just ask any of the millions of Americans who have already experienced the destruction that a warming planet can deliver to your doorstep. For them, a theoretical risk has already become an all too personal […] More
A proposed new law would release homeowners from the onerous process of listing every object lost in a destroyed home.California’s insurance commissioner joined with state legislators on Friday to propose a new law that would force insurers to pay homeowners 100 percent of the coverage for belongings inside destroyed homes, releasing them from the mentally taxing process of listing every object they lost — a requirement of many insurers, and one that consumer advocates say only compounds the trauma.If passed, the legislation would make California the only state in the country requiring 100 percent insurance payouts without such itemization. Similar legislation in Oregon and Colorado following catastrophic fires in those states require insurers to pay 70 and 65 percent of the coverage limit, without an inventory, according to Emily Rogan, a senior program officer for United Policyholders, which supports the rights of consumers.The bill applies only to homes that were destroyed in a disaster and calls on insurance companies to pay a homeowner’s total contents coverage without forcing them to provide an inventory, according to the bill’s sponsor, California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, and the bill’s author, State Senator Ben Allen.“The idea here is, we say, ‘Look, this is the insurance plan that you own. You have a total loss, and we’re not going to require you to draw up this itemized list in this moment of incredible pain and vulnerability,’” said Mr. Allen, whose district includes the Pacific Palisades burn zone.Forcing homeowners to account for every last item in their former house is “inhumane,” said Mr. Lara, adding that he was inspired to name the bill “Eliminate ‘The List’” after The New York Times published an article detailing the experience of a homeowner in Altadena, Calif., as she attempted to itemize every T-shirt burned in the flames. “It’s hard to describe the agony in people’s faces,” he said.The proposed law comes a week after Mr. Lara issued a bulletin imploring insurance companies to voluntarily pay 100 percent of the contents coverage for homes destroyed in the recent fires. That notice did not have the force of law, and the commissioner said that “it’s clear that we need to go further,” based both on the Times’s reporting and on the feedback his office has received from distressed homeowners.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More
The move will likely lead to higher costs for households across the state, and may push more insurers to leave, intensifying a home insurance crisis.California’s home insurance plan of last resort, designed for people who can’t get coverage on the private market, does not have enough money to pay claims from the Los Angeles wildfires and is getting an infusion of cash from regular insurers.State regulators said Tuesday that they will allow the program, known as the FAIR Plan, to collect $1 billion from private insurance companies doing business in California to pay its claims. That is likely to drive up insurance costs for homeowners across the state.The situation marks a perilous new stage for California’s home insurance market, which had already been reeling from wildfires made more frequent and intense by climate change. Facing growing losses, major insurers like State Farm were already pulling back from the state, making it harder for homeowners to find coverage.Now the pressure to leave will be even greater.The $1 billion assessment is the largest since the FAIR Plan was created in 1968, and the first time since the 1994 Northridge earthquake near Los Angeles that the FAIR Plan has faced claims it can’t pay on its own. The fee will be divided among insurers based on their market share, as required by state law.“The number one priority right now is that the FAIR Plan pay out its claims,” Ricardo Lara, California’s insurance commissioner, said in an interview. “The FAIR Plan, the way we’ve set it up, is doing what it’s supposed to.”As of 2023, the state’s largest insurers by market share were State Farm, Farmers Insurance Group and CSAA Insurance, according to data from AM Best, a company that rates the financial strength of insurers. Other major insurers in the top 10 included Liberty Mutual, Allstate and Travelers.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More
The state’s regulator wants insurance carriers to pay full policy limits without requiring victims to itemize every object in their destroyed homes.California’s top insurance regulator urged insurance carriers on Thursday to pay policyholders the full amount of the belongings in their coverage without requiring them to itemize every object lost — an undertaking that has burdened thousands of residents whose homes were destroyed by wildfires last month.In a notice that said policyholders are “overwhelmed,” Ricardo Lara, California’s insurance commissioner, gave insurance companies a deadline of Feb. 28 to inform the state agency on whether they would comply.Consumer advocates have long criticized the demand by many insurance carriers that homeowners to make detailed lists if they hope to get their full coverage amount.The stress is compounded in places like California’s burn zone, where many families are scrambling to find new places to live and new schools for their children. The monumental task of remembering all items inside a home that no longer exists is adding unbearable strain, said Michael Soller, the deputy insurance commissioner, in an interview.Mr. Soller said he and his colleagues continue to hear from homeowners about “the agony of having to go through the process of filling out an inventory after you just lost everything.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More
The killing of the UnitedHealthcare chief executive Brian Thompson has mesmerized a deeply polarized nation that shares a collective frustration over dealings with health insurance companies.On social media, some people have cheered for the gunman and expressed little remorse over the death of Mr. Thompson, 50, a father of two boys from Maple Grove, Minn., with some painting him as the villain in a national health care crisis.And now that the identity of the suspect, Luigi Mangione, 26, has been revealed and more photos of him have emerged, he is being defended or even applauded in some circles. That adulation reflects public anger over health care, said Nsikan Akpan, managing editor for Think Global Health, a publication that explores health issues at the Council on Foreign Relations. “The UHC killing and the social media response stem from people feeling helpless over health coverage and income inequality,” he said. The topic is so often ignored by American public officials, he said, that voters have stopped listing it as a top priority.“A targeted killing won’t solve those problems, and neither will condoning it,” he added.Experts who reviewed the flood of social media posts expressing support for Mr. Mangione said that while it can be difficult to assess the provenance of posts, none have the telltale signs of an “influence campaign” by a foreign entity.“People are legitimately actually pissed off at the health care industry, and there is some kind of support for vigilante justice,” said Tim Weninger, a computer science professor at Notre Dame and expert in social media and artificial intelligence. “It’s organic.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More
Insurers that paid claims in Maui say a deal unfairly keeps them from recouping their own losses.The ashes of last summer’s devastating fire in Lahaina on Maui, which killed 102 people and destroyed the town, were still smoldering when talk turned to how fraught the rebuilding process would be.Fire victims would need help fast, and Hawaii officials pushed hard for a quick resolution to the avalanche of lawsuits filed against the entities that had caused the fire: the state’s electric utility, a school system and Maui County, among others.Just days shy of the fire’s one-year anniversary in August, a settlement was announced: Together, those responsible would pay $4 billion to settle more than 600 lawsuits; compensate over 10,000 homeowners, businesses and others; and — critically — keep key institutions, like the utility, solvent.But getting a deal done that quickly meant adopting an unorthodox approach to the insurance industry’s role in the settlement — one that the industry is challenging. Now, hopes for a timely payout are at the mercy of the courts.Typically, insurers pay claims and then sue whomever they blame for the damage — like the driver who might have caused a car accident — to recover some of what they paid. In the Lahaina settlement, the insurers are instead expected to seek repayment from the people and businesses they insured. A person who received a share of the $4 billion deal from a pain-and-suffering claim, for example, could have to pay a portion of that to the insurance company.The industry is balking at this idea, saying it upends a core piece of its business model. Insurers have turned to state and federal courts to try to block the deal, slowing it down and frustrating fire victims and Hawaii leaders.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More
The conglomerate reported on Saturday that it had cut its holdings in Apple and Bank of America and increased its cash to a record high in the third quarter.Berkshire Hathaway, the conglomerate headed by Warren E. Buffett, extended its retreat from stocks in the third quarter, cutting its holdings in Apple and Bank of America and increasing its cash to a record $325.2 billion.Berkshire also reported on Saturday a 6 percent decline in quarterly operating profit, largely the result of higher liabilities for its insurance companies, including for Hurricane Helene, and currency losses from a strengthening U.S. dollar.These costs offset improved profitability at the Geico car insurer, where accident claims and expenses fell. Profit also rose at the BNSF railroad, which shipped more consumer goods, and Berkshire Hathaway Energy, where operating expenses declined.In its quarterly report, Berkshire said it sold about 100 million of its Apple shares, or 25 percent, over the summer, ending with about 300 million shares.It has now sold more than 600 million Apple shares this year, though Apple remained Berkshire’s largest stock holding, at $69.9 billion.The sales represented a large portion of the $36.1 billion of stock, including several billion dollars of Bank of America shares, that Berkshire sold in the quarter.Mr. Buffett said in May that he expected Apple to remain Berkshire’s largest stock investment, but selling made sense because the 21 percent federal tax rate on the capital gains was likely to increase.Berkshire bought just $1.5 billion of stock in the quarter, the eighth straight quarter when it was a net seller of stocks.It also repurchased none of its own stock, suggesting that Mr. Buffett doesn’t view even his own company’s shares as a bargain.Operating profit from Berkshire’s dozens of businesses fell to $10.09 billion, from $10.76 billion a year earlier.Insurance underwriting profit fell 69 percent, hurt by rising claims, $565 million of losses from Helene and a bankruptcy court settlement related to the defunct talc supplier Whittaker Clark & Daniels. The costs more than offset a near doubling of underwriting profit at Geico. Berkshire also projected $1.3 billion to $1.5 billion in pretax losses in the fourth quarter from Hurricane Milton, which hit Florida in October.Net income for Berkshire totaled $26.25 billion compared with a loss of $12.77 billion a year earlier when falling stock prices reduced the value of Berkshire’s investments.Mr. Buffett has said operating results better reflect Berkshire’s performance. Accounting rules require Berkshire to report unrealized investment gains and losses when it reports net income, adding volatility that Mr. Buffett counsels investors to ignore.Mr. Buffett, 94, has led Berkshire since 1965, and is expected to eventually transfer leadership to Berkshire’s vice chairman, Greg Abel, 62.Berkshire, based in Omaha, owns and operates an array of businesses, including Berkshire Hathaway Energy, many industrial and manufacturing companies, a big real estate brokerage, and retail businesses like Dairy Queen, See’s Candies and Fruit of the Loom. More
Few states elect their insurance commissioners. But in North Carolina, a proposed 42 percent rate hike and Hurricane Helene have raised the stakes in the upcoming election.When Marjorie Burnside moved to the North Carolina coast several years ago after retiring as a New York City police officer, she did not know much about the candidates running for the obscure statewide offices that oversee agriculture, labor and insurance. So Ms. Burnside, a lifelong Republican, voted along party lines.She now considers many of her area’s elected Republicans responsible for rubber-stamping too many development projects. And she is furious that they have failed to tame home insurance premiums, which have soared by 75 percent. That was why she accepted an invitation to a friend’s recent beach house party for State Senator Natasha Marcus, a Democrat who is challenging the state’s Republican insurance commissioner.“She just gave me lots to think about,” Ms. Burnside, 59, said after listening to Ms. Marcus’s warnings about loopholes that hurt policyholders and rates in coastal areas that are likely to see a significant rise. “More people, more claims, more raises — it’s all connected.”Eleven states elect their insurance commissioners, an obscure but powerful job that affects virtually every resident through regulations and the ability to challenge or reject rate hikes on home, car and other policies.The contest has typically been treated as a down-ballot afterthought involving little-known candidates, with hundreds of thousands of voters leaving their ballots blank. But as housing and insurance costs have skyrocketed, particularly in areas experiencing whiplash from climate change and extreme weather, these races are becoming proxies for public frustration over pocketbook anxieties.Natasha Marcus, a Democrat running for North Carolina insurance commissioner.Cornell Watson for The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More
During the presidential debate on Tuesday, Donald Trump was pressed on the details of his plan to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something “better.” The question should’ve been a softball. After all, Mr. Trump has been promising the American people a plan for nine years, so he’s had time to prepare. His answer? After ducking and weaving, he came up with: “I have concepts of a plan.” Uh, that’s not a plan.Plans translate values into action. They test the quality of the ideas and the seriousness of the people advancing them. Plans reveal for whom candidates will fight and how effective they are likely to be. And in a presidential race, if either party’s nominee is asked about his or her plans for something as fundamental as health care, voters should get a straight answer.The problem is not that Mr. Trump can’t think up a way to put his values into action. The problem is that when he and other Republican leaders produce plans with actual details, they horrify the American people.Mr. Trump’s health care values have been on full display for years. In 2017, Republicans controlled Congress, and their first major legislative undertaking was a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Every time they drafted something, independent experts would point out that their plan would toss tens of millions of people off their health insurance, jack up premium costs and slash benefits for those with ongoing health problems.After months of wrangling, Mr. Trump and Republican lawmakers voted a bill through the House to repeal the A.C.A. That night, Mr. Trump hosted a party at the White House to celebrate their big step toward taking away health care from millions of people.A.C.A. repeal then moved to the Senate. Republicans had the majority, so if they all stuck with Mr. Trump, the A.C.A. would die. As senators gathered to vote, nearly all of the Democrats — including Kamala Harris, then a senator from California — remained standing, too anxious even to sit down. We murmured stories about who would be affected by this vote: the uncle who had cancer and would lose coverage, the kid diagnosed with a heart anomaly whose parents wouldn’t be able to find new insurance, the college students who would just go without coverage and hope they didn’t fall on ice or get in a car accident. We felt the weight of people’s lives on the line.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More
