re: Shocker: study suggests insurance companies are breaking it off in our butts

quote:

---

In California: Homeowners in high wildfire risk areas, including parts of Northern and Southern California, allege that insurers systematically withdrew from local markets. Instead of competing fairly, companies allegedly communicated directly or through shared industry platforms to limit consumer choices and inflate premiums.

The lawsuits argue that insurance collusion allowed companies to avoid market competition and artificially raise prices, violating California’s strict consumer protection laws.

Key Allegations Include:

Coordinated Non-Renewals: Multiple insurers canceled policies in the same neighborhoods around the same time, leaving homeowners few alternatives.

---

Your evidence of collusion is a shitty department of insurance where multiple insurance companies decided to stop writing new policies (not affecting the current policies that they have already written).

It is unpossible that a crappy department of insurance can have negative consequences for the state? And that multiple insurance companies can independently agree that other states are better than California?
That's a shitty argument. But one that Californians would make (elect shitty politicians. Select shitty policies. Complain about shitty results without looking at the first 2 legs of the equation).

quote:

---

Artificial Premium Inflation: Companies allegedly used shared risk models to justify raising premiums across the board.

---

What does this mean?
Every company has their own data.
Are they buying third party data from the same source?

Do mortgage companies collude to deny a new home mortgage when the same equifax report indicates crappy credit and ability to repay promissory notes?

You have lied enough in this thread that I dont believe you.
And more than likely, whatever you have read or been told is skewed to keep you angry and not factually accurate. State Farm does not share data in California with any company other than repositories and the state. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

quote:

---

Steering Toward Limited Options: Insurers pushed homeowners into costly surplus lines insurance, offering less protection.

---

Now you are conflating insurance companies (underwriters) with insurance agencies.
An agent will present options. When standard, domestical options are not available then the agency will offer excess and surplus markets.

Would you rather no options?
That usually leads to "insurance desert" claims that disproportionately affect some minority demographic in some study.

quote:

---

The goal was to reduce hail claim costs by 50%, the petitions said. The initiative was rolled out in June 2020 in Dallas County, Texas, the petitions said, and was quickly extended to three other hail states, including Oklahoma. Within six months, the program was expanded to the rest of the country.

---

This is in the weeds.
But you are bringing up the notion of indemnity.

You have hail damage.
How much hail damage constitutes a roof replacement?
Honest question.
You are scientifically welcome to answer this engineering question.
I'd love your opinion. Because the claims manuals are all opinions.
Personally, id love the claims manuals to be released publicly. I'd love that as a consumer protection. Policy limits dont do justice to what a claims manual can do.

Call your state legislature.

Third leg

Insurance companies NEVER lose

Also third leg

Insurance companies willingly choose to not write in one of the largest states in the nation because they want to intentionally frick the customer


I never knew allegations were proof of collusion either

quote:

---

Third leg

Insurance companies NEVER lose

---

I agree

quote:

---

Also third leg

Insurance companies willingly choose to not write in one of the largest states in the nation because they want to intentionally frick the customer

---

If insurance companies are reacting to the department of insurance, does that mean the elected officials want to intentionally frick the customer?

That is the communist playbook.
Destroy the institution so that the organization who destroyed the institution can grab more control.

Why are you replying to me with that?

quote:

---

Holy shite you're clueless

---

He has absolutely no idea how any of this works … including free market competition. These companies would cut each others throat if they could gain 3% market share by squeezing margins.

Insurance companies update loss modeling all the time using industry data. It’s not collusion, it’s trying to understand if you’re going to lose your arse. The wind models in NC were updated years ago to account for the inland damage they were getting from storms after a couple of bad years.

So in CA insurance companies determine there is a huge fire risk
Try to raise rates and CA won’t let them
Withdraw from market
Models turn out to be true and there’s a gazillion dollar fire
Blame insurance companies for withdrawing because they knew the risk?

Wow.

quote:

---

Why are you replying to me with that?

---

Phone spasms.

quote:

---

People with lots of capital do this. And the industry consolidates just like every other.

This is like asking why someone doesn’t start a bank.

---

Why don't you at least self insure?

quote:

---

Nobody engaging in this industry is an historic loser unless there mismanaging institutional investments with a risky portfolio. They don’t lose.

---

No one in any industry is a "historic loser".

Or they go out of business. You're paranoid.

He has an issue with an industry average 99% combined ratio over the last ten years, so it's obvious he thinks insurance should be not for profit