I heard this today. I don’t know if it is true or not, but it sounds possible. People who own houses in the California foothills and related possible fire zones might be having trouble and might not be able to get fire insurance for their homes, or the premiums could be prohibitively expensive.

Considering the fires in both northern and southern California during the last 2-3 years, there could be a lot of fire zone areas.

If this is true, it raises a whole host of issues in addition to the owners simply wanting to insure one of their most valued assets. Other issues include, and this is not an exhaustive list, what if there is a mortgage on the house and the loan agreement requires the owner/borrower to have fire insurance – what are the lenders going to do in this circumstance; what areas will insurance companies classify as unusual fire zone or hazard areas that are subject to different fire insurance coverage or offerings; are any insurance companies at risk of insolvency or bankruptcy due to exposure for having to pay for damages arising from the fires; and what will the California government do and say about these issues (hint – I’m not hearing anything)? And I am sure that you can come up with a more comprehensive list.

Insurance typically is considered a risk management issue, but it is a personal issue for homeowners, and it would not surprise me if fire insurance coverage, and building in general, become political in this instance.

Back to work – a full day ahead working on pleadings, declarations, court filings, and meetings.

Best to you, David Tate, Esq. (California). My two primary blogs: trust, estate, elder and dependent adult abuse litigation, etc. – http://californiaestatetrust.com, and D&O, audit committees, governance, etc. – http://auditcommitteeupdate.com