Insurance rates soar in high fire-risk areas
By Samantha Masunaga, Los Angeles Times
Soaring insurance rates may accomplish what the Telegraph Fire failed to do: drive the Stoffan family from their home of 10 years.
The Stoffans’ Northern California house survived the 2008 blaze, which destroyed 30 homes and 100 other structures as it charred 53 square miles west of Yosemite National Park.
But the family’s annual insurance costs doubled this year to $5,100 even though it planted a 50-foot lawn buffer around the house and installed fire-resistant landscaping.
The Stoffans are among the California homeowners living near wild lands who have seen their rates increase sharply because insurance companies are increasingly wary of high fire-risk areas. Factors fueling insurer’s fears include the drought and some huge recent blazes, such as the 2013 Rim fire that burned more than 250,000 acres in and around Yosemite.
Affected residents across the state complain of fire insurance rates leaping 30 percent or more.
All insurance companies are different, and the rates HAVE become exorbitant in recent years. But an interesting thing that happened a couple of years ago was that some insurance companies got proactive when fire threatened multi-million dollar houses near Sun Valley, Idaho; they hired their own fire fighters to protect the investments. It was more cost-effective to prevent the losses than to replace them, so instead of depending on Federal resources, they hired private fire suppression. No offense at all meant to government fire fighters, but the decision makers in a private company must perform or they don’t have jobs. Not so with the Feds. Very different situation. And an effective solution.
Dog, the story is more complicated. and I quote:
Most new development is going to have to deal with wildfire issues, Durland says, while, at the same time, “our response capabilities are being diminished as local fire stations close because of budget cuts.”
Read more: http://www.bankrate.com/finance/insurance/insurance-companies-hire-private-firefighters.aspx#ixzz3lN17yzTa
Follow us: @Bankrate on Twitter | Bankrate on Facebook
So they have to do so because budget cuts are thinning out the herd of government firefighters.
Rick
We should privatize the fire departments-all those lazy liberals and their families living off the gubmint that can’t pay their free market fire insurance premiums can burn up for all the sub human Ayn Rand World delusionists care
HAHAHAHAHA yah, sure….
This problem often is company specific and people need to shop around, I send people to AAA now because they are hard to beat and are still insuring people in fire risk areas. The problem with some companies is they charge for being too remote from fire stations and in rural areas, no hydrants. Being remote is a problem these days for risk and cost for insurance and if they deem the area a high risk the problem is getting any policy in place and if all fails there is a state policy for fire only.
Totaled, what’s the difference between paying for your fire protection privately, by choice, or having the money stolen from you at gunpoint by the government?
You think you’re getting protection for FREE? You think those fire fighters would be out there if nobody paid ’em? Who’s covering all those captains’ retirements? Somebody is paying for the service, either way.
Take an economics class.