[infecto]

Because state run insurance is kind of a crock. These are programs put together for constituents to be pleased enough to vote in the next election cycle but will do little to help in an actual disaster. Its been years but the state run insurance had pretty limiting caps on both contents and the cost to rebuild. Seemed kind of pointless from a total loss perspective.

Edit: I would guarantee that the state run plan is both underfunded and not charging appropriate premiums for the given risk.

[redserk]

Genuinely curious, how so? Do they have frustrating claims processes or limit pay-out when an incident happens?

I'm in another state and my home insurance has been increasing but nowhere near what it sounds like is happening in California and Florida.

[infecto]

Good question. Not about the claims process but about state programs being generally underfunded and not underwriting the risk properly. If multiple insurance companies cannot underwrite the risk properly, how can a state government do it any better and at a sometimes affordable price. Maybe everyone is baking in the idea that the state will just get a bailout from the federal government.

I also believe that it creates a perverse incentive for people to continue living in unmaintainable habitats. We also hear talk about how can these cities with no water continue to survive, its not maintainable etc. Well neither is living in a hurricane prone area or high fire risk area.

The options for these funds are often fairly limited too and not covering even 50% of the loss. YMMV.

[everybodyknows]

> underfunded and not charging appropriate premiums

Sure. But Sacramento has a secret disaster recovery plan: Appeal to Washington for a bailout.

[infecto]

And that probably would happen.