'$4M is a lot': Questions raised after CA bills mandating insurers to consider home hardening fail
SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- Two bills that aimed to reduce insurance costs for consumers who demonstrated home hardening on their property failed in the state legislature this summer. 7 On Your Side Investigates followed the money trail behind the votes.
"We don't want our house to burn!" said Oakland Hills resident Tom Grossman.
Like tens of thousands of Californians, Grossman is worried about insurance. When he first moved to the Oakland Hills in 2017, his insurance company refused to touch any of the homes in the area. And today, the problem is even worse - at least seven of the state's insurance providers have dropped out of California or restricted issuing policies.
"Getting insurance up here is difficult to impossible," said Grossman, who's invested $15,000 of fire mitigation into his property.
In his neighborhood, six families have already been dropped by their provider this year, despite investing tens of thousands of dollars into hardening their homes.
Two bills that aimed to prevent that -- failed in the state legislature.
AB 2416 & SB 1060
Assembly Bill 2416 would've rewarded homeowners with insurance discounts if certain mitigation efforts are met. Senate Bill 1060 would've required insurers using risk models during underwriting to account for mitigation efforts and require the California Insurance Dept. to make the reports and evaluations available to the public.
But critics of these bills argue they're too complicated and confusing.
MORE: State's wildfire insurance crisis is so bad, even CAL FIRE stations are struggling to get coverage
What happened?
State Sen. Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park) authored SB 1060. His office told 7 On Your Side he didn't bring it up for a final hearing because it didn't have the votes.
7 On Your Side Investigates found that eight senators voted against Becker's bill. Three senators were reported as 'absent' for the vote. That group of 11 lawmakers received a combined total of approximately $4,051,488 from Finance, Insurance and Real Estate Industries since assuming political office. That's according to an I-Team analysis of a report compiled by the nonprofit and watchdog group Follow the Money - an organization that tracks campaign contributions funneled to candidates from individuals and political action committees.
According to Follow the Money, Sen. Becker received $417,697 from those industries since assuming office.
"I rejected insurance industry amendments that would have rendered it useless and intend to reintroduce an effective version of the bill next year," Sen. Becker told 7 On Your Side.
"Well, I think the companies didn't want it to pass...they didn't want to have to take into account mitigation efforts," said Jamie Court, President of Consumer Watchdog. "They don't want any more burdens on them."
7 On Your Side found all the legislators who voted against Sen. Becker's bill represent districts with high fire risk areas - many in areas where insurance companies have dropped or restricted issuing policies.
"It's shocking that a legislator that represents a fire-torn area could vote no on a bill that requires that companies take into account hardening," Court said. "I mean, the point of the modeling is to know that certain areas are more prone to fires. And if you're not taking into consideration home hardening and those type of wildfire prevention tactics, then what are you modeling? What are you doing? It doesn't make any sense!"
MORE: New proposal could help Californians in high-risk fire areas get their insurance back
Follow the Money Analysis
The politician who received the most money -- $866,870 from Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate industries is State Sen. Janet Nguyen, who represents Laguna Niguel where at least 20 homes were destroyed last year during the coastal fire. 7 On Your Side reached out for comment as to why she voted against the bill but has yet to hear back.
Another lawmaker who voted against the bill is State Sen. Brian Dahle who's district encompasses areas of the 2015 Butte Fire, the 2020 Bear fire, the 2021 Dixie Fire, and the deadliest fire in the state's history - the 2018 Camp Fire.
Stephanie: "Senator, you know firsthand the struggle your constituents are facing when it comes to getting home insurance. Why did you vote no on SB 1060?"
Sen. Dahle: "Well, 1060 is a very complicated bill that didn't really make sense. And basically, the author pulled the bill because he didn't have the votes because it wasn't something that was going to help Californians."
Stephanie: "Well the bill would have required insurance companies to factor in mitigation efforts for homeowners... how is that not helping Californians?"
Sen. Dahle: "It was very complicated and somewhat not workable with what the Governor was trying to do through his executive orders. And that's why the bill died and that's why I voted against it."
7 On Your Side checked on this and were told by Governor Newsom's staff, "The Governor's Office doesn't typically weigh in on bills that don't reach his desk, which is the case with this legislation."
Sen. Dahle has secured millions of dollars in funding for wildfire prevention projects and has introduced legislation to support fuel mitigation in his district. But he says he doesn't believe mandating private companies to do more if the solution.
"At the end of day, putting more onerous restrictions on companies and the legislature... is not the answer," said Dahle.
According to Follow the Money, Sen. Dahle received approx. $570,038 from Finance, Insurance and Real Estate industries since assuming office in the state assembly in 2012. That's 56% of all the money he's received while in office.
Stephanie: "At any point in those discussions you've had with the insurance industry representatives... have you ever felt they've influenced your decision on a vote?"
Sen. Dahle: "Not at all.... what influences me is to do the right thing for my constituents every day."
"You can only drive down the costs when you take the risk away, and the risk is too much fuel in California."
Stephanie: "So you're talking about driving down the cost. Do you agree that mandating insurance companies to account mitigation steps would help with that?"
Sen. Dahle: "You can require them to do anything you want, and that happens here every day, but they just stop writing policies. They just move out of the state. That's not an option either."
Stephanie: "Senator, I don't feel like I got an answer to my question... Do you support that idea?"
Sen. Dahle: "Look, I've been supporting the ability to do preventive maintenance and I think that's a great idea. It has to be done community-wide."
MORE: State Farm Insurance says some CA homeowners may keep their coverage, but there's a catch
Community Mitigation
That idea is currently underway in Oakland with the Firesafe Council, a volunteer group that works to reduce wildfire risks in the neighborhood.
"We have been able to acquire these large bins and encourage our neighbors to fill those bins with flammable material," said Marty Kaplan, an Oakland Hills resident. "So our entire neighborhood is very much tuned in to reducing the fuel load."
Kaplan is doing things like removing all the highly flammable juniper around his property. He says it's going to cost at least $100,000.
"We don't know what the alternative would be... what about the people who can't afford to?" Kaplan said.
And the people who can't afford or even qualify for insurance.
"We need legislators who understand that and will create incentives for communities to come together and reduce risk," Grossman said.
What's Next?
Assemblymember Damon Conolly, the author of AB 2416 that failed, told 7 On Your Side the bill did receive bi-partisan support and support from the Insurance Commissioner but was not brought up for a vote in the state senate.
He says he doesn't know why the bill was not heard, but he plans on reintroducing it on the first day of the next legislative session. Sen. Becker plans to do the same with SB 1060.
Editor's Note: Originally, the Governor's Office told 7 On Your Side, Gov. Newsom supported SB 1060, but after the story aired informed ABC7 otherwise. We've updated the story to reflect that.
