Huh? Prop 103 is from 1988.
The article cites wildfires and close proximity of buildings (again, wildfires) as reasons to withdraw.
The article cites wildfires and close proximity of buildings (again, wildfires) as reasons to withdraw.
It's never actually been enforced before in CA.
Edit: listen to CharlesW. I'm incorrect on the fact that it wasn't enforced until recently
[0] - https://www.politico.com/newsletters/california-climate/2023...
Incorrect, it's been enforced since it passed. Soon after it passed, insurance companies refunded over $1.2 billion to consumers based on California Department of Insurance (CDI) mandates. You can find many more examples.
https://consumerfed.org/pdfs/whatworks-report_nov2013_hunter...
Right now, California does not allow pricing of insurance policies except on a few non-standard factors. These factors do not include "proximity to wildfire risk areas", which means that insurers lost a lot of money in the big wildfires of 2017-2018. The state refuses to change, so the insurers are pulling out of the market.
Framing this as "because of wildfires" is technically true, but misses the point. The problem is that insurers in CA can't accurately price for wildfire risk.
They also tend to be the more anti-government types. One family in an unincorporated part of the mountains refused to pay the voluntary firefighter service fee. When their home caught on fire the firefights just watched it and put out the parts that threatened a neighbor's house who did pay the fee.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2007_California_wildfi...