ReportWire

Tag: california homeowner

  • After insurance pullback, advocates demand a ‘bill of rights’ for California policyholders

    [ad_1]

    A leading consumer group is proposing a policyholder rights initiative that would require insurers to offer coverage to California homeowners who fireproof their homes — or lose the right to sell home or auto insurance in the state for five years.

    The Insurance Policyholder Bill of Rights was filed with state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office last week by Consumer Watchdog, the Los Angeles advocacy group whose founder Harvey Rosenfield authored Proposition 103, the 1988 initiative that governs California home and auto insurance law.

    The initiative for the November 2026 ballot also would give policyholders not renewed by their insurer 180 days to make home repairs and improvements necessary for renewal if they face unavoidable permit, construction and other delays.

    “The Insurance Policyholder Bill of Rights guarantees that people who invest in wildfire mitigation get coverage and prevents companies from canceling people simply because they file a claim,” Rosenfield said in a statement.

    Insurers can seek six-month waivers of the rule in certain geographic areas but would need to show they have an overconcentration of risk there.

    The proposed initiative comes after insurers began pulling back from the California market a few years ago after a spate of wildfires and began seeking double-digit rate increases. However, it is unclear whether the group will even start gathering the 500,000-plus signatures it would need to make the ballot.

    Carmen Balber, executive director of Consumer Watchdog, said the measure was prompted by a separate initiative filed by a Roseville, Calif., insurance broker that would repeal core reforms of Proposition 103, which established an elected insurance commissioner with the right to review requests for rate hikes before they take effect.

    The proposed initiative — called the California Insurance Market Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2026 — was filed by Elizabeth Hammack, owner of Panorama Insurance Associates. It would allow insurer rate increases to take effect prior to any rate review, though they could be suspended later if the insurance commissioner determines the market is not “reasonably competitive.”

    Additionally, insurers would have to provide premium credits to policyholders who take steps to reduce fire dangers on their property, under the measure.

    The measure also would abolish another core element of Proposition 103, by banning payments to “intervenors” such as Consumer Watchdog, which insert themselves in the rate-review process and seek to block or reduce increases — a provision that has irked the industry since its inception.

    Hammack did not immediately respond Monday to requests for comment.

    In an earlier email exchange with The Times, she said: “I drafted up the initiative and filed it out of pure frustration about the horrible California insurance market dysfunction and the feeling of just needing to do something, anything, to make a difference.”

    Balber said it requires $5.5 million to gather the required signatures for an initiative. While the group is confident it could raise the funds, she said it would not proceed with its own measure unless Hammack raises money and moves forward beyond the filing stage — or if Consumer Watchdog is swamped by donations.

    “There are hundreds, if not thousands of Californians who are fed up with the insurance industry and after the Los Angeles fires, I can guarantee you that there are people out there who would be begging to fund a ballot measure that would finally hold the insurance industry accountable,” she said.

    Proposed ballot initiatives in California must be reviewed by the attorney general, who prepares a title and brief summary. After that, proponents have 180 days to gather signatures.

    The proposed dueling ballot measures come at a time when there is widespread anger not only over rate increases, but how some insurers have handled claims stemming from the Jan. 7 Los Angeles-area fires, which destroyed thousands of homes and killed at least 19 people.

    The Eaton Fire Survivors Network in Altadena and local politicians have demanded that Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara halt anymore rate increases for State Farm General, California’s largest home insurer, unless complaints over its claims handling are resolved.

    In addition to State Farm, the state’s insurer of last resort, the California FAIR Plan, has come under attack for denying smoke-damage claims. That prompted Gov. Newsom to send a letter this month calling on the plan to handle the claims “expeditiously and fairly.”

    The plan has taken on hundreds of thousands of policyholders in recent years as insurers began pulling out of the state’s fire-plagued homeowners market. Hammack’s initiative seeks to have the plan establish a schedule to shrink its roles when more coverage from carriers becomes available.

    Her measure also would require the California insurance commissioners to have at least five years of insurance experience, either with a regulator, insurer or in other roles, such as actuarial science.

    Times staff writer Paige St. John contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Laurence Darmiento

    Source link

  • Thousands of California homeowners can cut their property tax bill. Here’s how

    Thousands of California homeowners can cut their property tax bill. Here’s how

    [ad_1]

    With property tax bills as high as they are in Southern California, you’d think that homeowners would sign up for every break they could get.

    You would be wrong.

    Since 1974, the state of California has offered to reduce the assessed value of any owner-occupied home by $7,000. That, in turn, reduces the home’s annual tax bill. You just have to apply once, and the “homeowners exemption” will be applied automatically to your assessment until you move out or sell.

    According to Los Angeles County Assessor Jeff Prang, however, nearly one-third of county homeowners do not sign up for the exemption. That translates to $30 million in extra tax payments by roughly 435,000 households.

    Granted, that’s not a huge amount of money per household; with property tax rates generally set at 1% of assessed value, the $7,000 exemption saves $70 per year. But after a few years, that would be enough for a bigger TV set in your living room.

    And signing up for the exemption is especially important for homeowners hoping to take advantage of 2020’s Proposition 19, Prang’s office said in a press release Wednesday. The ballot measure allows people to transfer their homes to one or more of their children without it being reassessed for property tax purposes, potentially shielding their offspring from an enormous increase in taxes. But to qualify for this benefit, the recipient of the house must apply for a homeowner’s exemption or disabled veteran’s exemption within one year of the transfer.

    If you lived in your current abode as of Jan. 1 but haven’t claimed a homeowners exemption, you have until Feb. 15 to apply to receive the full $7,000 reduction. After that, the reduction will be prorated, Prang’s office said.

    To claim the exemption, download a form from https://assessor.lacounty.gov/homeowners/homeowner-exemption. Then fill it out with information about yourself, any co-owner and your property, and return it to the assessor’s office.

    Forms are available in English and Spanish. For more information, visit the assessor’s website or call (213) 974-3211.

    [ad_2]

    Jon Healey

    Source link

  • Florida company targeted California homeowners with predatory scheme, state attorney general alleges

    Florida company targeted California homeowners with predatory scheme, state attorney general alleges

    [ad_1]

    The California attorney general has sued a Florida-based real estate firm, alleging it ran a predatory scheme that limited homeowners’ ability to sell and left them vulnerable to owing thousands of dollars.

    The company, MV Realty, has been sued over similar allegations by multiple states. In September, the firm filed for bankruptcy.

    In its lawsuit announced Thursday, the California attorney general’s office alleged MV Realty targeted financially vulnerable California homeowners with deceptive marketing, promising them $300 to $5,000 as long as they gave MV Realty the “opportunity” to be their real estate agent if they sold their house.

    In reality, MV Realty’s Homeowner Benefit Agreement was far more complicated and the company trained its representatives to give misleading responses to consumer questions and to try to provide the full agreement only at the time of signing, which limited the ability of homeowners to review confusing fine print, the lawsuit alleged.

    “MV Realty is a financial predator,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. “Through its one-sided agreements, the company lined its own pockets at the expense of vulnerable homeowners in California, holding their most valuable assets hostage.”

    MV Realty did not immediately return requests for comment by email and phone.

    According to the attorney general, the MV Realty agreement mandated homeowners use the brokerage if they sell their home in the next 40 years — far longer than typical exclusive listing agreements that last several months, the lawsuit says.

    When a homeowner sells within the four decades, the lawsuit says, MV Realty gets six months to list the property, per the agreement. If the company completes the sale, the homeowner is required to pay MV Realty the greater of 3% of the sales price or 3% of the home’s value at the time the owner signed the benefit agreement, authorities said.

    If MV Realty can’t sell the home within six months, the agreement says homeowners get 60 days to try to sell the home on their own or with another brokerage and must do so at the same price and terms MV Realty offered, according to the lawsuit.

    If homeowners can sell, they owe MV Realty nothing. But if they cannot — which authorities said is likely — homeowners must use MV Realty to sell or pay a fee of 3% of the home’s value to terminate the 40-year agreement, according to the lawsuit. On an average home in L.A. County today, that would be over $25,000.

    That termination fee is typically more than 10 times the upfront fee the homeowner received from MV Realty, the lawsuit says.

    In its lawsuit, the attorney general alleged that the agreement reduces the incentive for MV Realty to provide quality service and that the company violated California law in several ways, including unlicensed activity and improper disclosures.

    According to the attorney general, since early 2022 at least 1,443 California homeowners signed the company’s Homeowner Benefit Agreement. The company “supposedly stopped” signing up California homeowners by November 2022 but still enforces existing agreements, as well as liens that limit the homeowner’s ability to refinance, the lawsuit alleges.

    [ad_2]

    Andrew Khouri

    Source link