The home insurance market is crumbling in New Orleans, leaving Alfredo Herrera with few options for coverage — and skyrocketing insurance premiums.
Herrera, 35, works in finance for a local bank. He bought his 900-square-foot home in New Orleans’ Mid-City neighborhood in 2020 for $270,000, and lives there with his partner.
In 2022, he paid $1,600 a year for home insurance. But last July, his insurer canceled his coverage, saying it was leaving Louisiana.
In the past, acquiring or keeping homeowners’ insurance didn’t present much of a problem.
But as climate change increases the frequency and severity of extreme weather, insurers — especially those in areas most impacted by floods and fires — are raising their premiums, or pulling out altogether, impacting the affordability and availability of home and fire insurance.
Hot take: all severe/extreme-risk flood zone properties should be immediately rezoned to disallow residential use. Current residents would be able to stay where they are, however any flood zone property put up for sale should be sold for either recreational or agricultural use, otherwise acquired by the government to be restored to a riparian ecosystem. Better to take the financial hit of property value decrease now and start dismantling high-risk development than realize the loss suddenly after the next big flood washes the entire neighborhood away. Additionally, creating more dedicated wetlands may even mitigate how far-reaching that next flood is and help protect properties that would have otherwise gotten inundated.
I think a major problem with this approach is that many of the people that’ll be displaced are poor and devaluing their land before kicking them out is only going to make that worse. I also think rebuilding homes in areas where it’s going to get demolished again by another storm in 5 years is yet another terrible approach.
Perhaps it’s best to let them get an insurance payout for their home and then gently nudge them into taking that cash and moving somewhere else.
That’s why I included the option to sell to the government (kind of like a voluntary eminent domain program).
Insurance rates are the true Canary of Collapse. If the money men have calculated that certain areas are going to quickly become unlivable, then people should listen.
Of course it’s not trivial to just pack up your life and move but it’s about to become super necessary, unfortunately.
Yeah but just picking up your life and leaving isn’t always a possibility simply because you have so much investment already where you’re at. I mean how the hell do you get any of the money that you have invested in the home… it’s uninsurable who do you sell it to.?
For those that live in those areas, sadly you have really two choices. Move. Or go without insurance.
It sucks but that’s reality. The government couldn’t even afford to cover those homes. If it were one home in a danger zone then it would be feasible. But with the number of homes, businesses and other buildings it just isn’t feasible. We need to start working to get these people out of there. If we start now it can in theory be done but the longer we wait the more impossible it will become.
I’m sure you know we’re not going to do the right thing for anyone in the coming years. We won’t do anything to avoid the disaster and we won’t give a shit when disaster strikes others either. Greed and selfishness will be the end of us. We’ll all just say “Thank God it wasn’t me” until eventually it is.
Tell us you’re from the USA without telling us you’re from the USA.
True, but show me the country prepared to protect its citizens from the consequences of climate change. There isn’t one.
I think the Dutch are prepared for rising sea levels.
It’s almost like the insurance industry is unsustainable in a world where catastrophe is the norm.
These folks are losing their insurance. But even those of us who live in safe areas with little to no history or indicators of disaster are still seeing rates skyrocket. Mine were raised 30% this year and I have no risk of flooding or wildfire, and very low risk of storm or earthquake damage. Crime in my neighborhood is the lowest in the region (kind of surprising considering it’s very working class mixed with lots of low income housing), and has no history of damage to the property at all. But still, 30% hike with no reason given. My car insurance jumped 25% too.
Start an insurance company.
My take on this is that the root cause, like many other significant problems that we are seeing, is clearly wealth inequality. Yes, climate change is a big factor but, if the populace was readily able to afford replacement of homes impacted by natural (and human-augmented) disasters, insurance would have no problem. With how expensive homes have become due to artificially-constrained supplies, insurance companies have become an absolute necessity to mitigate homeownership risks and, when they pay out, and up needing to fork over more cash.
Please don’t misconstrue this as support for the insurance industry. They are just necessary at this time for people to manage risks in areas that cost far more than they should (healthcare, transportation, homes, etc).
Good, this will get people to start moving away from being under water and from wildfire zones. This is the beginning of the necessary movement, if it has to begin this way, then so be it.
It fucking sucks that here in CA, the entire state is losing insurers despite the fact that a huge chunk of the population lives in coastal areas with no danger of wildfires.
I would have thought California EQ was the peril scaring them all away. Very expensive to reinsure - most commercial property catasrophy models (RMS & AIR are the big ones) peg it as the second most risky North American peril after Florida Hurricane.
Then those models are fucking shit. San Francisco and Los Angeles are in no danger from wildfire.
EQ is earthquake. According to USGS, California faces a ~75% chance of a major earthquake in the next 100 years.
Have a quick google of “California quake risk” for a slew of in-depth (and somewhat scary) articles and research papers.
Home insurance already doesn’t cover earthquakes though. That’s a separate insurance product, and companies could just stop offering it.
Presumably state laws prohibit discrimination, so their only choice is to cover everywhere in the state or nowhere
None that I could find.
I honestly think the insurance companies are taking advantage of this to try to force changes to the California insurance regulation, which is quite strict regarding cost increases to consumers. It’s the only reason I could think of that they would pull out of the entire state and not just the dangerous areas. It’s 2024, the data exists to an excruciating level.
Insurance is a slush fund which earns interest in between taking in premiums and paying out claims. If you mandate that they lose money the whole game pretty obviously collapses and the losses are unlimited.
Any industry that is mandatory for some vital facet of life cannot be left to the whims of the market. It should be highly regulated, and preferably state run.
Price controls are needed to prevent the naked greedy price fixing we see in many other industries.
Price controls can cause all capital to exit the market. If the state picks up the tab and sets an unreasonably low rate the state may eventually go bankrupt and crease to be able to borrow
Depends. Monopolies with price controls work well for some industries, like utilities. I do agree that everything should be done to encourage a private market with competition, within reason, but regulation needs to be strong.
We need sanctuary cities to be built to anticipate massive human climate migration.
Megacity One here we come!
N a t i o n a l i z e
I cannot think of something I want nationalized less than home insurance. Climate change means that some areas are actually much riskier than they were before and the truth is some portion of households are going to become uninsurable and others are going to become expensive. Option 1: The expense of insurance and risk can be priced into the property at time of sale to a buyer willing to bear the cost. Option 2: If we are going to give free money to these people when their house is destroyed with government subsidized insurance to cover disasters it should be on condition of condemning uninsurable properties not rebuilding them multiple times.
