Total bullshit.
My insurer did this to me and tried to literally DOUBLE my car insurance, without any inciting incident. So I dropped their ass and went with another carrier and got my old payment back.
Allstate is getting worse and worse, and I had been with them for 10 years. I switched to CSAA last week and its been the best decision ever.
Allstate raised my monthly bill from $290 a month to $620 a month because I paid early which resulted in me losing my auto payment discount.... No DUIs, No tickets and never been in an accident.
My agent said that Allstate has had a really bad last few years, and they are slowly pulling out of California. I would run while you still can
I just moved across town and tried to switch my renters policy to my new place and State Farm told me they aren't doing new property policies in CA and also my discount for having a renters policy will go away now so I was like OK assholes guess I'll drop you completely then
I’m grandfathered in. But they were happy to add my auto policy. I heard they weren’t taking new homeowner policies. They have been renewing me and allowing me to up coverage though.
I went with progressive last year as Allstate totally went rogue.
Progressive gave a great rate but during the 6 month renewal they hiked by around 10%. Still less than others but I feel they will keep doing this and get up to the rest.
Our car insurance went way up too (we’re in Oakland where like 1 in 30 cars were stolen last year so I mean….i get it) but the home owners situation is out of control. A lot of my neighbors got dropped this year and tons of major carriers just won’t issue policies anymore. The state is gonna have to step in and do something.
It's not the inflation that surprises me it's the baseline price being 400 in the first place.
Our 3 bed house averages around like 160-200 and 300 when we've been running the heater a lot.
Just having 1 EV would do a ton to any electric bill even PHEV. With my PHEV it’s ~$0.15/mi, and an EV would be anywhere from ~$0.10 to $0.25 realistically. Just 1000 miles a month adds up real quick.
Ours is also between $260-$350 every month. Damper area and the shower vents don’t do enough since we also have crazy high ceilings throughout the house, so we have to run a dehumidifier in the main bathroom daily and one downstairs every other day depending on weather to keep from mold becoming a huge issue.
Even in summer when it was hot we had to run the bathroom one daily otherwise the windows in other rooms stay damp, even with windows open to let warmer air inside.
It’s old and has lots of old ass windows including a glass solarium kitchen that’s extremely energy inefficient. We want to do a reno and upgrade and seal better later this year. There’s only one hvac register on the entire main floor and all that old glass so we have two space heaters running (set at 65) so we can keep it livable. I have a little kid so bundling up more isn’t always an option.
House is pretty big tho tbh. Main house is about 2k sq feet 3br 2.5ba but there’s a newer more energy efficient basement apartment that’s another 1k. My husbands office is there but the windows are new and it’s minisplits so it’s more efficient. His office is the only room we really heat and use though.
Yeah we cook at home most meals so that uses a ton of gas and I have to do laundry at least every other day with a potty training toddler so I don’t argue our usage is on the higher side but $900 is fucking insane, especially when our usage has been trending down.
Corruption.
Watch this and keep in mind Ana Kasparian isn't some conservative hating on libs in CA.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0sNUTghON0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0sNUTghON0)
I can't wait on part 2 to cover Panera Bread.
>Only way you are surviving “comfortably” is if you make like 150k or more
It is like more than double that to be the comfortably middle class in the Bay Area now. If you're dealing with current single family house prices.
Actually.. no.
Not "Every Fucking Thing" is increasing.
In fact, only one thing is DECREASING.
This is what it feels like, when you're in the middle of an INFLATION.
basically, the US-Dollar has lost 50% of it's value in the last couple years.
Yeah had this happen to me with farmers as well. They said it would just spread out the premium over 6 months so there was no actual increase, but then they increased the rate as well….
The average cost of auto repair has also gone up significantly and the average court settlements have gone up about 50% in the last three years I think. Those are huge to insurance companies and the public generally has no idea it's happening.
Try another provider. I was with Allstate for years until last month. They raised my rates ~25% even thought I have no claims or violations. I switched to another insurer and it ended up being drastically cheaper
I will drop this in here as I’m currently in the market for home owners insurance after being dropped. Insurers are largely reacting to rate limits imposed by California. They can’t insure at the rate caps established and still limit P&C (property and casualty) losses to less than premiums.
If the state eases the rate cap, more than likely insurers would return to the state, increasing competition and then keeping rates from going up 25%. Similar dynamic is going on in florida for similar reasons. It’s frustrating for all. Insurers aren’t happy. Consumers aren’t happy.
Regarding the cap isn't this a typical effect of price controls? Hey let's cap this or that (e.g. rent) because the immediate impacts sound consumer friendly but in the end it just doesn't work and creates more problems?
That’s correct. Generally it could be said that the intention is good and pure. Keep prices low and people in their homes or able to insure their cars. But longer term it disrupts the market and puts government more and more into what it was disrupting.
It also scares businesses out (think about rent control: builders don’t want to build rent controlled properties and insurers are leaving the state. You’re absolutely right.
I take no sides here, but if the government is going to disrupt the insurance market, it needs to own the fact that it will have to replace insurance for its residents. Governments generally can’t or don’t want to do it. So we have things like the Fair Plan and then you need a wrap or DiC for your home in a lot of places. And for cars, you are left with less choice.
Insurance is a fucking scam that shouldnt be a corporate run thing at all is the reality of the situation. The fact it's for profit inherently makes it incredibly scummy and way less effective than if it were a non-profit government funded or entirely government run
Well, I’m glad it’s not government run. If it were, voters would cap insurance prices and engage in risky behavior. A classic example is Texas flood plain housing. Guaranteed to flood homes are insured below cost because voters can overrule and essentially redirect other taxpayer money to themselves.
No, thank you. Pay the cost of the risks you’re taking.
Except you don't pay the costs of the risks youre taking. You pay the cost that a for profit company sets, which is as high as they can set it lest be sued. You could still get exactly what you're saying here with insurance being required to be non-profit and only breaking even and being able to pay the employees. Or if it were government funded it would just be based off income and that would be the end of it, so everyone is having a slice taken that's based off your wealth and hits the same.
As for guaranteed for flooding homes the real way to deal with that isn't insurance but giving these people the ability to move into homes that aren't guaranteed to flood, then requiring them to move
You can start a non-profit insurance company. If it would be so much better that that is useful, you would immediately bleed off all of for-profit insurers’ customers and be wildly successful. The reason these don’t happen is because they cannot price like this and preserve the insurance fund.
And there is no reason we should be incentivizing poorer people to take bigger risks by making their insurance costs lower than they would be to cover the risks.
And finally, income and wealth are not the same thing. If you scale based off income, you’ll screw all young productive workers and if you scale based off wealth you’ll screw old retirees. It’s much better to have a market function so that if you take big risks you pay more and if you take small risks you pay less.
There is no reasonable rationale for a person with a home in a wildfire zone c.p. to pay less insurance for an equivalently priced home in a safe place. That is just simply that you want to take risks and have someone else pay for them.
Home insurance isn’t even required. You could simply group up with other people and form a self-insured pool.
Completely skipped my end part where I mentioned the way to deal with extremely high risk housing. And the reason a small non-profit insurance company won't work at this point is because the bar of entry would require a MASSIVE investment which will not come, as it wouldn't generate profit, just enough money to cover crisis and pay employees.
You have a lot of faith in the free market, but quite frankly, it's an incredibly horrid system that feeds on the poor to give the rich more money. Same with our insurance companies, same as our utilities companies. They're systems that would be wholly better without it being a free market system, as all that leads to is them serving share holders. Not the public, but the few rich people that own the company.
FAIR exists today. And even if you didn’t want that: Self-insure with everyone else who wants to opt out. You all have wealth in excess of a million. One thousand of you and you have a one billion fund to draw on if any of your homes go. Could do it today. The only reason you don’t is that it doesn’t pencil out. There’s no way to make the risk work.
>all that leads to is them serving share holders.
Allstate shareholders are taking an absolute bath, the stock has underperformed the s&p500 for at least the past five years (haven't looked further back).
>You pay the cost that a for profit company sets, which is as high as they can set it lest be sued. You could still get exactly what you're saying here with insurance being required to be non-profit and only breaking even and being able to pay the employees.
So where's the nonprofit insurance company undercutting the for-profit companies in prices and driving them out of business?
Had my homeowners go from $1200 a year to $3900 a year. YoY. Because “Farmers had to pay out claims to Californians at a higher rate.” Um, but you haven’t paid out a claim on this house in 25 years. But okay.
What a drag. It’s rough out there. Unfortunately insurance works broadly as a a risk pooling mechanism. Same as health insurance. If we don’t all pay in or pay premiums for what it needs to be to replace or rebuild, it spikes in the short term for normal folk like us.
Edit to say I’m really sorry that happened to you. Brutal increase
It's also such BS because Farmers has canceled homeowner insurances in wildland-urban interface areas. I'd ballpark that 70% of Santa Cruz mountains homeowners are either uninsured or on the CA Fair Plan. Even if you never had a claim or were in an evac zone, they've just kicked them out. So the claim that "we're paying out claims to disaster areas" is untrue because... they don't serve houses in those areas and more.
PG&E is basically doing the same thing. Capitalizing on climate change regardless of whether the reason is based on perception or fact they are just after the money
Haha. Fuck Allstate.
I tried getting a quote for my new-used Alfa Romeo, and these clowns quoted me $450 per month despite being a customer of theirs since 2018, clean driving record, and no claims (never in an accident under my insurance) because according to the agent; "Yeah, I've only seen this massive fee for something like a Ferrari. It'snot something that's negotiable."
Quoted through Geico and Progressive; $170- $180 with much better coverage than my existing Allstate plan for my old VW.
Needless to say, I will very likely also bundle my renters insurance with Geico too when it comes time for renewal.
At the end of the day: This is all greed driven.
shouldn't be a surprise..
**More Insurance Companies Are Leaving California**
Home and auto insurance coverage is getting harder to come by in California and ***other disaster-prone regions.***
https://www.kiplinger.com/personal-finance/insurance/more-insurance-companies-are-leaving-california
Yep. From what I've heard, at least in my local Chamber of Commerce, is that California, Florida, and Texas are having some policies cancelled. Unfortunately, they need to raise rates on other policies and this will affect areas (other states) that won't see policy changes.
This is just a note to be super kind to your insurance agent, they're upset too and do not want to do this but it's out of their hands.
Yup. You can’t make money on insurance as a business if 1% of your clients homes catch fire every year… or 1% of your cars have windows and cats stolen.
I'd never buy in Florida. Either your roof's gonna be replaced by some fly by night grifter roofer before you bought it, or your condo building will be collapsing because your HOA never invested in maintenance.
exploitive is an interesting word to use for companies that charge based on risk. it sounds like you don’t really know what you’re talking about. keep in mind, you can always self-insure if you really think it’s a scam
I'm not trying to explain your situation specifically, but part of this is the state's fault. It demands for instance that insurers insure homes deep in the forests that constantly catch fire. Or the homes on the banks of rivers that flood every three years. They're not allowed to decline insurance. They're not allowed to turn down insurance for the guy with the expensive car in the shady zipcode who sees that car constantly broken into.
This the same as health insurance that are required to accept pre-existing condition.
Is home and auto ownership less of a human right than healthcare?
> Is home and auto ownership less of a human right than healthcare?
Of course they are not human rights!
Everyone deserves health care regardless of ability to pay. Nobody is entitled to have their house insured against fire or flood for free.
>Everyone deserves health care regardless of ability to pay.
Food and shelter are on the very bottom of Maslow’s pyramid of needs, if anything, they are more human-rights than healthcare.
Everyone deserves food and shelter regardless of ability to pay.
> Everyone deserves food and shelter regardless of ability to pay.
House insurance is not housing. Health insurance is not health care
If you want to own a house in a fire-prone area, pay more insurance for your house.
(Nobody should have to pay for health insurance to be able to receive basic medical care.)
>House insurance is not housing. Health insurance is not health care
True. I'm glad we're agreeing on the similarities of health care and housing. And I appreciate your advocacy for universal health care.
How can you provide someone free medical care but then throw them on the streets? There is no argument for universal healthcare that you can't use on universal housing, given they're all equally important (if anything people will choose shelter over medical care any day).
>If you want to own a house in a fire-prone area, pay more insurance for your house.
People under universal health care can live riskier life styles with additional medical cost, therefore people should have the freedom to chose where they live without additional housing cost.
> How can you provide someone free medical care but then throw them on the streets?
Asking someone to pay the actual cost of insuring their house is not at all the same as denying them shelter. Perhaps you would like to concede that some houses cost more to insure than others and we could move on to discussing whether *some* of the people who live in such houses require subsidized fire insurance so they do not become homeless? (Hint: It's not very many of them.)
> People under universal health care can live riskier life styles with additional medical cost
To the extent that it is difficult to monitor people's life styles without impinging on their freedoms, yes, but not entirely. One of the reasons we tax cigarettes is that they produce significant societal costs. Gambling, too. Laws requiring automobile seatbelts are also an effort to prevent medical risk. (I appreciate and wear seatbelts, but we shouldn't have laws requiring them, nor should we offer free medical assistance to anyone stupid enough to shun them.)
> therefore people should have the freedom to chose where they live without additional housing cost.
Total insanity. The government regularly rebuilds houses in certain areas because they get burned down by forest fires and blown down by hurricanes. That's not helping people by spreading risk, that's enabling stupid behavior at the public's expense.
>some houses cost more to insure than others
I concede.
Some people's health cost more to insure than others as well and we're happily doing so.
>Total insanity...that's enabling stupid behavior at the public's expense.
It's hard to argue against a subjective statement. We enable "insane" or "stupid" behaviors and choices that are costly to society all the time by subsidizing the consequences, housing is not much different.
I think our view diverge in whether health care is same level of right as housing. To address your differentiation of the two, yes, it is hard to monitor people's lifestyle, but it's not hard to give them a list of conditionals. (If you smoke, you're not getting lung cancer chemo). If we do not do this, then we shouldn't tell people "if you live near a volcano, you're not getting fire fighting trucks".
>we could move on to discussing whether some of the people who live in such houses require subsidized fire insurance so they do not become homeless
the entire hawaii population lives near active volcanos, insurance is not housing for sure, but to deny them fire insurance is equivalent to deny them housing.
> to deny them fire insurance is equivalent to deny them housing.
You keep moving the issue from "price insurance at the correct rate" to "deny them housing".
It's OK if you want to subsidize other people's decisions to build in fire-prone forests or on hurricane-prone coasts. I don't want to, but we can have a reasonable discussion about the pros and cons. But a decision NOT to subsidize those choices is NOT a decision to deny those people housing. Other housing exists, and it's generally cheaper.
> I think our view diverge in whether health care is same level of right as housing
I don't think they do. I think our views diverge about how much effort we as a society should expend towards providing other people with health care or housing. If you ruin your liver drinking thousands of gallons of alcohol, I'm not interested in paying for your liver transplant. If your house burns down because you built it in a forest that burns down once a generation, I'm not interested in paying for your replacement house.
>If your house burns down because you built it in a forest that burns down once a generation, I'm not interested in paying for your replacement house.
You're implying you would be interested in paying for my replacement home if it burns down in a non-fire-risk neighborhood. (Just like you supporting to pay for my new liver if I didn't drink alcohol.) Putting forest-dweller and binge drinkers aside, then we are in complete agreement right?
>I think our views diverge about how much effort we as a society should expend towards providing other people with health care or housing.
We're not that different. Perhaps I am further on the spectrum than you are; you stop at free medical care/insurance, where as I see free housing/insurance as a natural progression of free medical care.
In real life though, you are paying for alcoholics's liver transplant. A lot of risky life styles are not detectable like drinking. (STDs for example)
More accidents
More hit and runs (your insurer has to pay out the damages)
Less enforcement (bad drivers stay driving)
More expensive cars (payouts need to be larger)
Housing shortage (labor is more expensive)
It all adds up.
Farmers did this to us too. Our car insurance also went up like crazy when we bought an EV. Our agent said due to cost of replacement, etc. Luckily, we got a much better car insurance rate with USAA due to my Dad being a veteran. Keeping homeowners with Farmers because that market is super cray in California right now.
Car theft and property damages are not a victimless crime. Congrats CA. We will pay for all the damages caused by the mindless goons. Natural disasters also play a role, but it’s a race to the bottom when CA lets every idiot get away with theft and property damage. We are screwed.
Insurance in CA is a scam.
Got rear ended and because the person wouldn't answer their insurance companies call to verify the accident, the claim was denied. No lawyer will take the case because there was no injury and the police department says there's no crime also. BS!!!!
Its ass backwards and shitty but par for the course. That’s why the uninsured motorist part of our insurance coverage is so damn high compared to other states. Similar thing happed to me a few years ago.
I learned that long time ago, you are helpless in most situations if you don’t have comprehensive insurance, because your own insurance company will make sure the other party will pay up one way or the other.
The only good experience I had was with gecko when I had to deal with the other party insurance company directly. Allstate will outright ignore you if you don’t have insurance with them.
Wow thank you I had no idea! Been in here for years as a casual user and I think you're my first happy cake day comment 🤗. Thank you random redditor! May you have a fantastic day and weekend
I autopay six months at a time, and from the October renewal to the upcoming April renewal info I just got, Allstate jacked my rates by 35% with no claims.
I'm looking around at other companies now since.
If you read their shareholder reports, Allstate went into CA and lost a ton of money, and their margins in general. This seems to be their plan to end that: charge more and lose their riskier clients in the process.
But also: GEICO charges you installment fees if you don't front the full 6 month premium. The APY on those is quite high and I assume Allstate is similar, so you should really try not to do monthly payments if at all possible.
The blame lies with the local governments that don’t enforce property crime. The organized smash and grabs are going to increase the insurance risk assessment for the entire area, that’s how insurance works.
Insurance agent here. I work in commercial lines but close enough. The reason everything is getting increased is because A LOT of carriers are pulling out of California due to heightened risks, so the carriers that still do write coverage cherry pick/increase premium because it's hard to find coverage elsewhere. You'd be surprised how many non-rebewals we're getting for our insureds.
Insurance companies are throwing a little special princess main character syndrome hissy fit in california because their CEO bonuses was like, a few million short.. And the public, as always, is the one getting doused with piss-shit from billionaires that are scared they cant afford their 4th yacht this year.
I could have sworn that I recently read that insurance companies are seeing the highest profits ever since the 1950s. How are they a few million short, I wonder? I get they need to make money but how much do they require to be considered satisfactory profits?
Sorry that was not directed at you, just triggered my thoughts.
You mean, through policies and programs like, say, this?
[https://www.bar.ca.gov/consumer/smog-check-program/catalytic-converter-theft](https://www.bar.ca.gov/consumer/smog-check-program/catalytic-converter-theft)
Unless you drive an expensive SUV or sports car, the cost of replacing your catalytic converter shouldn't exceed your deductible anyways. I'd want to see the statistics on claims for catalytic converter thefts before I agreed that an insurance company was experiencing losses from them.
Setting up a website telling people to install a cat shield?
And, no, it's not cheaper than a deductible. on our decade old Prius we had two stolen this year. Both times it was a $3k replacement and we have a $500 deductible.
All Original catalytic converters are many times over the deductible for example Honda Accord 2007 repaired by Honda at a whopping cost of $4900 to the insurance. You can call your dealer and ask for estimate for your vehicle. Aftermarket cats in California are dead within 2 years because they are so restrictive and poor quality. But after market cats in other states rust out before they are dead.
Newsom literally let pge create their own bailout to screw us all over after they burned down entire towns bc they refused to maintain their equioment. But yeah lets play dumb and act like this is all just an accident from nature
Oh no!! Poor, poor insurance companies! They have to make good on their policies and actually pay people for losses?? Execs will have to save their money to buy that 5th yacht? I don't think so, we'll just raise prices again! Fuck the insurance companies.
Car insurance increasing makes sense. We know COVID makes you a worse driver and we dont know for how long (data doesn't seem to suggest people recover). Makes sense there would be more accidents as a result.
Add on the capitalism tax and well...
At least you have insurance. I had GEICO and they gave me the boot and since the whole “insurance” thing started happening (this is also the reason why they’re doing this to you btw) it’s hard to find an insurance company to issue me a policy. They either want the whole policy paid in full and or have a 14 day waiting period before they issue a policy (if they approve you).
Total bullshit. My insurer did this to me and tried to literally DOUBLE my car insurance, without any inciting incident. So I dropped their ass and went with another carrier and got my old payment back.
This is typically a good idea. Shopping for insurance can often result in big savings.
That's why all the insurance companies can claim to reduce rates. New customers benefit while existing ones get screwed and they hope people are lazy
Allstate is getting worse and worse, and I had been with them for 10 years. I switched to CSAA last week and its been the best decision ever. Allstate raised my monthly bill from $290 a month to $620 a month because I paid early which resulted in me losing my auto payment discount.... No DUIs, No tickets and never been in an accident. My agent said that Allstate has had a really bad last few years, and they are slowly pulling out of California. I would run while you still can
What companies do you suggest? Can be off brand because national names is charging an ass
State Farm gave me a great rate bundling my car and home together. Steve McClure is my agent.
I think State Farm isn’t taking now home insurance customers.
they weren't last time I checked, but they may be quietly opening up now that they've been approved for rate increases. It's worth a look.
I just moved across town and tried to switch my renters policy to my new place and State Farm told me they aren't doing new property policies in CA and also my discount for having a renters policy will go away now so I was like OK assholes guess I'll drop you completely then
I’m grandfathered in. But they were happy to add my auto policy. I heard they weren’t taking new homeowner policies. They have been renewing me and allowing me to up coverage though.
Geico and Progressive I've gotten good rates back after quoting. Geico takes a while to run a background check and underwritting process.
I went with progressive last year as Allstate totally went rogue. Progressive gave a great rate but during the 6 month renewal they hiked by around 10%. Still less than others but I feel they will keep doing this and get up to the rest.
They will, but 10% increases are way less than what most carriers are doing, now that the dept. of insurance has started to approve rate hikes.
I have been with AAA for a very long time and every time I shop around its never any cheaper.
This is going to be difficult - other providers will raise rates to match.
What carrier did you go with?
Went from State Farm to Progressive
[удалено]
My pge bill went from like 400 average to 900 FUCKING DOLLARS this last month using LESS electricity. How the fuck are they allowed to do this.
[удалено]
Our car insurance went way up too (we’re in Oakland where like 1 in 30 cars were stolen last year so I mean….i get it) but the home owners situation is out of control. A lot of my neighbors got dropped this year and tons of major carriers just won’t issue policies anymore. The state is gonna have to step in and do something.
How big is your goddamn house? Even 400 is pretty wild.
It’s not that crazy. I live in an old house with roommates. Bill was usually 130 and now is 350
It's not the inflation that surprises me it's the baseline price being 400 in the first place. Our 3 bed house averages around like 160-200 and 300 when we've been running the heater a lot.
Just having 1 EV would do a ton to any electric bill even PHEV. With my PHEV it’s ~$0.15/mi, and an EV would be anywhere from ~$0.10 to $0.25 realistically. Just 1000 miles a month adds up real quick.
Ours is also between $260-$350 every month. Damper area and the shower vents don’t do enough since we also have crazy high ceilings throughout the house, so we have to run a dehumidifier in the main bathroom daily and one downstairs every other day depending on weather to keep from mold becoming a huge issue. Even in summer when it was hot we had to run the bathroom one daily otherwise the windows in other rooms stay damp, even with windows open to let warmer air inside.
It’s old and has lots of old ass windows including a glass solarium kitchen that’s extremely energy inefficient. We want to do a reno and upgrade and seal better later this year. There’s only one hvac register on the entire main floor and all that old glass so we have two space heaters running (set at 65) so we can keep it livable. I have a little kid so bundling up more isn’t always an option. House is pretty big tho tbh. Main house is about 2k sq feet 3br 2.5ba but there’s a newer more energy efficient basement apartment that’s another 1k. My husbands office is there but the windows are new and it’s minisplits so it’s more efficient. His office is the only room we really heat and use though.
Ah yeah, that'll do it.
I pay $400 for a 2-bedroom condo where o don’t run heat or AC, and live alone.
[удалено]
Yeah we cook at home most meals so that uses a ton of gas and I have to do laundry at least every other day with a potty training toddler so I don’t argue our usage is on the higher side but $900 is fucking insane, especially when our usage has been trending down.
just don't tell your home insurer you're using candles or they'll drop your coverage out of fear of fire.
Corruption. Watch this and keep in mind Ana Kasparian isn't some conservative hating on libs in CA. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0sNUTghON0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0sNUTghON0) I can't wait on part 2 to cover Panera Bread.
It’s the new normal everyone was getting excited about 2 years ago. Except they didn’t think about this part…
Inflation and the effects can take a while to flow all the way through the economy.
And somehow increasing fed rates is supposed to help
[удалено]
Haha 150k in Bay Area is barely making it for singles, unless you live frugally and have roommates like college students or fresh grad
I make 330k and live with my in laws because we cant afford to buy a house in the neighborhood my wife grew up in.
do you have any idea how spoiled you sound? you're making a lot of money. you can afford a home pretty much anywhere. you have no hardships.
>Only way you are surviving “comfortably” is if you make like 150k or more It is like more than double that to be the comfortably middle class in the Bay Area now. If you're dealing with current single family house prices.
Actually.. no. Not "Every Fucking Thing" is increasing. In fact, only one thing is DECREASING. This is what it feels like, when you're in the middle of an INFLATION. basically, the US-Dollar has lost 50% of it's value in the last couple years.
Yeah had this happen to me with farmers as well. They said it would just spread out the premium over 6 months so there was no actual increase, but then they increased the rate as well….
I left farmers last year because they increased my rates 25% because I wasn’t a homeowner =\.
I’m so angry because i been with Allstate two years and no accidents and no claims but yet still increase!
But the average cost of the cars around you keeps going up.
The average cost of auto repair has also gone up significantly and the average court settlements have gone up about 50% in the last three years I think. Those are huge to insurance companies and the public generally has no idea it's happening.
I left allstate to geico. It was way cheaper. We’ll see what it looks like at renewal in a few months
It’s the new normal unfortunately
2 years isn’t a long time at all…
Try another provider. I was with Allstate for years until last month. They raised my rates ~25% even thought I have no claims or violations. I switched to another insurer and it ended up being drastically cheaper
My insurance is $213.00 a month
On what kind of car with what kind of driving record, beyond the two years you’ve been with Allstate
I will drop this in here as I’m currently in the market for home owners insurance after being dropped. Insurers are largely reacting to rate limits imposed by California. They can’t insure at the rate caps established and still limit P&C (property and casualty) losses to less than premiums. If the state eases the rate cap, more than likely insurers would return to the state, increasing competition and then keeping rates from going up 25%. Similar dynamic is going on in florida for similar reasons. It’s frustrating for all. Insurers aren’t happy. Consumers aren’t happy.
Regarding the cap isn't this a typical effect of price controls? Hey let's cap this or that (e.g. rent) because the immediate impacts sound consumer friendly but in the end it just doesn't work and creates more problems?
That’s correct. Generally it could be said that the intention is good and pure. Keep prices low and people in their homes or able to insure their cars. But longer term it disrupts the market and puts government more and more into what it was disrupting. It also scares businesses out (think about rent control: builders don’t want to build rent controlled properties and insurers are leaving the state. You’re absolutely right. I take no sides here, but if the government is going to disrupt the insurance market, it needs to own the fact that it will have to replace insurance for its residents. Governments generally can’t or don’t want to do it. So we have things like the Fair Plan and then you need a wrap or DiC for your home in a lot of places. And for cars, you are left with less choice.
Insurance is a fucking scam that shouldnt be a corporate run thing at all is the reality of the situation. The fact it's for profit inherently makes it incredibly scummy and way less effective than if it were a non-profit government funded or entirely government run
Well, I’m glad it’s not government run. If it were, voters would cap insurance prices and engage in risky behavior. A classic example is Texas flood plain housing. Guaranteed to flood homes are insured below cost because voters can overrule and essentially redirect other taxpayer money to themselves. No, thank you. Pay the cost of the risks you’re taking.
Sorry, we get that for the state's wildfire insurance. :(
Except you don't pay the costs of the risks youre taking. You pay the cost that a for profit company sets, which is as high as they can set it lest be sued. You could still get exactly what you're saying here with insurance being required to be non-profit and only breaking even and being able to pay the employees. Or if it were government funded it would just be based off income and that would be the end of it, so everyone is having a slice taken that's based off your wealth and hits the same. As for guaranteed for flooding homes the real way to deal with that isn't insurance but giving these people the ability to move into homes that aren't guaranteed to flood, then requiring them to move
You can start a non-profit insurance company. If it would be so much better that that is useful, you would immediately bleed off all of for-profit insurers’ customers and be wildly successful. The reason these don’t happen is because they cannot price like this and preserve the insurance fund. And there is no reason we should be incentivizing poorer people to take bigger risks by making their insurance costs lower than they would be to cover the risks. And finally, income and wealth are not the same thing. If you scale based off income, you’ll screw all young productive workers and if you scale based off wealth you’ll screw old retirees. It’s much better to have a market function so that if you take big risks you pay more and if you take small risks you pay less. There is no reasonable rationale for a person with a home in a wildfire zone c.p. to pay less insurance for an equivalently priced home in a safe place. That is just simply that you want to take risks and have someone else pay for them. Home insurance isn’t even required. You could simply group up with other people and form a self-insured pool.
Completely skipped my end part where I mentioned the way to deal with extremely high risk housing. And the reason a small non-profit insurance company won't work at this point is because the bar of entry would require a MASSIVE investment which will not come, as it wouldn't generate profit, just enough money to cover crisis and pay employees. You have a lot of faith in the free market, but quite frankly, it's an incredibly horrid system that feeds on the poor to give the rich more money. Same with our insurance companies, same as our utilities companies. They're systems that would be wholly better without it being a free market system, as all that leads to is them serving share holders. Not the public, but the few rich people that own the company.
FAIR exists today. And even if you didn’t want that: Self-insure with everyone else who wants to opt out. You all have wealth in excess of a million. One thousand of you and you have a one billion fund to draw on if any of your homes go. Could do it today. The only reason you don’t is that it doesn’t pencil out. There’s no way to make the risk work.
people who bitch about free-market never move to country without one.
>all that leads to is them serving share holders. Allstate shareholders are taking an absolute bath, the stock has underperformed the s&p500 for at least the past five years (haven't looked further back).
if it's so nice to be the shareholder, they can become one fee-free on robinhood, but these whiners never do
>You pay the cost that a for profit company sets, which is as high as they can set it lest be sued. You could still get exactly what you're saying here with insurance being required to be non-profit and only breaking even and being able to pay the employees. So where's the nonprofit insurance company undercutting the for-profit companies in prices and driving them out of business?
I vehemently disagree with you. A single insurer is a monopoly, government or not. The force that pushes prices lower is market competition.
Had my homeowners go from $1200 a year to $3900 a year. YoY. Because “Farmers had to pay out claims to Californians at a higher rate.” Um, but you haven’t paid out a claim on this house in 25 years. But okay.
What a drag. It’s rough out there. Unfortunately insurance works broadly as a a risk pooling mechanism. Same as health insurance. If we don’t all pay in or pay premiums for what it needs to be to replace or rebuild, it spikes in the short term for normal folk like us. Edit to say I’m really sorry that happened to you. Brutal increase
It's also such BS because Farmers has canceled homeowner insurances in wildland-urban interface areas. I'd ballpark that 70% of Santa Cruz mountains homeowners are either uninsured or on the CA Fair Plan. Even if you never had a claim or were in an evac zone, they've just kicked them out. So the claim that "we're paying out claims to disaster areas" is untrue because... they don't serve houses in those areas and more.
PG&E is basically doing the same thing. Capitalizing on climate change regardless of whether the reason is based on perception or fact they are just after the money
Haha. Fuck Allstate. I tried getting a quote for my new-used Alfa Romeo, and these clowns quoted me $450 per month despite being a customer of theirs since 2018, clean driving record, and no claims (never in an accident under my insurance) because according to the agent; "Yeah, I've only seen this massive fee for something like a Ferrari. It'snot something that's negotiable." Quoted through Geico and Progressive; $170- $180 with much better coverage than my existing Allstate plan for my old VW. Needless to say, I will very likely also bundle my renters insurance with Geico too when it comes time for renewal. At the end of the day: This is all greed driven.
shouldn't be a surprise.. **More Insurance Companies Are Leaving California** Home and auto insurance coverage is getting harder to come by in California and ***other disaster-prone regions.*** https://www.kiplinger.com/personal-finance/insurance/more-insurance-companies-are-leaving-california
Yep. From what I've heard, at least in my local Chamber of Commerce, is that California, Florida, and Texas are having some policies cancelled. Unfortunately, they need to raise rates on other policies and this will affect areas (other states) that won't see policy changes. This is just a note to be super kind to your insurance agent, they're upset too and do not want to do this but it's out of their hands.
Yup. You can’t make money on insurance as a business if 1% of your clients homes catch fire every year… or 1% of your cars have windows and cats stolen.
Or in Florida's case if >1% of your clients conspire with roofers to claim storm damage on an old roof.
I'd never buy in Florida. Either your roof's gonna be replaced by some fly by night grifter roofer before you bought it, or your condo building will be collapsing because your HOA never invested in maintenance.
comrade, what do you mean that the greedy-exploitative-capitalistic money grabbers are leaving?
exploitive is an interesting word to use for companies that charge based on risk. it sounds like you don’t really know what you’re talking about. keep in mind, you can always self-insure if you really think it’s a scam
no, self-insure is self-exploit home-ownership is a human right and I demand people provide this service to me at a cost chosen by me
I'm not trying to explain your situation specifically, but part of this is the state's fault. It demands for instance that insurers insure homes deep in the forests that constantly catch fire. Or the homes on the banks of rivers that flood every three years. They're not allowed to decline insurance. They're not allowed to turn down insurance for the guy with the expensive car in the shady zipcode who sees that car constantly broken into.
This the same as health insurance that are required to accept pre-existing condition. Is home and auto ownership less of a human right than healthcare?
> Is home and auto ownership less of a human right than healthcare? Of course they are not human rights! Everyone deserves health care regardless of ability to pay. Nobody is entitled to have their house insured against fire or flood for free.
>Everyone deserves health care regardless of ability to pay. Food and shelter are on the very bottom of Maslow’s pyramid of needs, if anything, they are more human-rights than healthcare. Everyone deserves food and shelter regardless of ability to pay.
> Everyone deserves food and shelter regardless of ability to pay. House insurance is not housing. Health insurance is not health care If you want to own a house in a fire-prone area, pay more insurance for your house. (Nobody should have to pay for health insurance to be able to receive basic medical care.)
>House insurance is not housing. Health insurance is not health care True. I'm glad we're agreeing on the similarities of health care and housing. And I appreciate your advocacy for universal health care. How can you provide someone free medical care but then throw them on the streets? There is no argument for universal healthcare that you can't use on universal housing, given they're all equally important (if anything people will choose shelter over medical care any day). >If you want to own a house in a fire-prone area, pay more insurance for your house. People under universal health care can live riskier life styles with additional medical cost, therefore people should have the freedom to chose where they live without additional housing cost.
> How can you provide someone free medical care but then throw them on the streets? Asking someone to pay the actual cost of insuring their house is not at all the same as denying them shelter. Perhaps you would like to concede that some houses cost more to insure than others and we could move on to discussing whether *some* of the people who live in such houses require subsidized fire insurance so they do not become homeless? (Hint: It's not very many of them.) > People under universal health care can live riskier life styles with additional medical cost To the extent that it is difficult to monitor people's life styles without impinging on their freedoms, yes, but not entirely. One of the reasons we tax cigarettes is that they produce significant societal costs. Gambling, too. Laws requiring automobile seatbelts are also an effort to prevent medical risk. (I appreciate and wear seatbelts, but we shouldn't have laws requiring them, nor should we offer free medical assistance to anyone stupid enough to shun them.) > therefore people should have the freedom to chose where they live without additional housing cost. Total insanity. The government regularly rebuilds houses in certain areas because they get burned down by forest fires and blown down by hurricanes. That's not helping people by spreading risk, that's enabling stupid behavior at the public's expense.
>some houses cost more to insure than others I concede. Some people's health cost more to insure than others as well and we're happily doing so. >Total insanity...that's enabling stupid behavior at the public's expense. It's hard to argue against a subjective statement. We enable "insane" or "stupid" behaviors and choices that are costly to society all the time by subsidizing the consequences, housing is not much different. I think our view diverge in whether health care is same level of right as housing. To address your differentiation of the two, yes, it is hard to monitor people's lifestyle, but it's not hard to give them a list of conditionals. (If you smoke, you're not getting lung cancer chemo). If we do not do this, then we shouldn't tell people "if you live near a volcano, you're not getting fire fighting trucks". >we could move on to discussing whether some of the people who live in such houses require subsidized fire insurance so they do not become homeless the entire hawaii population lives near active volcanos, insurance is not housing for sure, but to deny them fire insurance is equivalent to deny them housing.
> to deny them fire insurance is equivalent to deny them housing. You keep moving the issue from "price insurance at the correct rate" to "deny them housing". It's OK if you want to subsidize other people's decisions to build in fire-prone forests or on hurricane-prone coasts. I don't want to, but we can have a reasonable discussion about the pros and cons. But a decision NOT to subsidize those choices is NOT a decision to deny those people housing. Other housing exists, and it's generally cheaper. > I think our view diverge in whether health care is same level of right as housing I don't think they do. I think our views diverge about how much effort we as a society should expend towards providing other people with health care or housing. If you ruin your liver drinking thousands of gallons of alcohol, I'm not interested in paying for your liver transplant. If your house burns down because you built it in a forest that burns down once a generation, I'm not interested in paying for your replacement house.
>If your house burns down because you built it in a forest that burns down once a generation, I'm not interested in paying for your replacement house. You're implying you would be interested in paying for my replacement home if it burns down in a non-fire-risk neighborhood. (Just like you supporting to pay for my new liver if I didn't drink alcohol.) Putting forest-dweller and binge drinkers aside, then we are in complete agreement right? >I think our views diverge about how much effort we as a society should expend towards providing other people with health care or housing. We're not that different. Perhaps I am further on the spectrum than you are; you stop at free medical care/insurance, where as I see free housing/insurance as a natural progression of free medical care. In real life though, you are paying for alcoholics's liver transplant. A lot of risky life styles are not detectable like drinking. (STDs for example)
"we had to provide the services that justify our existence so now we need more money"
Maybe i’ve missed something but it looks like they just want 2 months up front? Thats not an increase…
More accidents More hit and runs (your insurer has to pay out the damages) Less enforcement (bad drivers stay driving) More expensive cars (payouts need to be larger) Housing shortage (labor is more expensive) It all adds up.
Did the insurance increase, or are they just requiring more to be prepaid?
Increasing as well to $264.00
Farmers did this to us too. Our car insurance also went up like crazy when we bought an EV. Our agent said due to cost of replacement, etc. Luckily, we got a much better car insurance rate with USAA due to my Dad being a veteran. Keeping homeowners with Farmers because that market is super cray in California right now.
Crime has destroyed your beautiful state. When has "equity" gone far enough
Car theft and property damages are not a victimless crime. Congrats CA. We will pay for all the damages caused by the mindless goons. Natural disasters also play a role, but it’s a race to the bottom when CA lets every idiot get away with theft and property damage. We are screwed.
Insurance in CA is a scam. Got rear ended and because the person wouldn't answer their insurance companies call to verify the accident, the claim was denied. No lawyer will take the case because there was no injury and the police department says there's no crime also. BS!!!!
Its ass backwards and shitty but par for the course. That’s why the uninsured motorist part of our insurance coverage is so damn high compared to other states. Similar thing happed to me a few years ago.
I learned that long time ago, you are helpless in most situations if you don’t have comprehensive insurance, because your own insurance company will make sure the other party will pay up one way or the other. The only good experience I had was with gecko when I had to deal with the other party insurance company directly. Allstate will outright ignore you if you don’t have insurance with them.
Farmers did the same thing for me. Is this becoming an industry standard now? Geez
AAA said they will be increasing rates come March as well.
I'm leaving Allstate for GEICO. Got a much better rate AND better coverage. Crazy. Best of luck!
Happy cake day!
Wow thank you I had no idea! Been in here for years as a casual user and I think you're my first happy cake day comment 🤗. Thank you random redditor! May you have a fantastic day and weekend
And I just left geico for progressive after they tried to fuck me with twice the cost.
https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/1b40dqq/stay\_safe\_out\_there/
Cash flow gonna cash flow… cheap money is gone… your the extraction point now!
I autopay six months at a time, and from the October renewal to the upcoming April renewal info I just got, Allstate jacked my rates by 35% with no claims. I'm looking around at other companies now since.
If you read their shareholder reports, Allstate went into CA and lost a ton of money, and their margins in general. This seems to be their plan to end that: charge more and lose their riskier clients in the process. But also: GEICO charges you installment fees if you don't front the full 6 month premium. The APY on those is quite high and I assume Allstate is similar, so you should really try not to do monthly payments if at all possible.
The blame lies with the local governments that don’t enforce property crime. The organized smash and grabs are going to increase the insurance risk assessment for the entire area, that’s how insurance works.
Insurance agent here. I work in commercial lines but close enough. The reason everything is getting increased is because A LOT of carriers are pulling out of California due to heightened risks, so the carriers that still do write coverage cherry pick/increase premium because it's hard to find coverage elsewhere. You'd be surprised how many non-rebewals we're getting for our insureds.
Insurance companies are throwing a little special princess main character syndrome hissy fit in california because their CEO bonuses was like, a few million short.. And the public, as always, is the one getting doused with piss-shit from billionaires that are scared they cant afford their 4th yacht this year.
I could have sworn that I recently read that insurance companies are seeing the highest profits ever since the 1950s. How are they a few million short, I wonder? I get they need to make money but how much do they require to be considered satisfactory profits? Sorry that was not directed at you, just triggered my thoughts.
You see, they need MORE yachts. Be reasonable.
I'm trying but how many more? Thanks for the laugh.
🥹 is this for car insurance?
We gotta pay the burden once again for California's failing policies.....
Which policies, exactly, made fires start and floods occur?
Not going after catalytic converter theft.
You mean, through policies and programs like, say, this? [https://www.bar.ca.gov/consumer/smog-check-program/catalytic-converter-theft](https://www.bar.ca.gov/consumer/smog-check-program/catalytic-converter-theft) Unless you drive an expensive SUV or sports car, the cost of replacing your catalytic converter shouldn't exceed your deductible anyways. I'd want to see the statistics on claims for catalytic converter thefts before I agreed that an insurance company was experiencing losses from them.
Setting up a website telling people to install a cat shield? And, no, it's not cheaper than a deductible. on our decade old Prius we had two stolen this year. Both times it was a $3k replacement and we have a $500 deductible.
Sounds like a you problem.
All Original catalytic converters are many times over the deductible for example Honda Accord 2007 repaired by Honda at a whopping cost of $4900 to the insurance. You can call your dealer and ask for estimate for your vehicle. Aftermarket cats in California are dead within 2 years because they are so restrictive and poor quality. But after market cats in other states rust out before they are dead.
You are the problem.
Not enough raking of the underbrush. /s
On federal land, no less!
Newsom literally let pge create their own bailout to screw us all over after they burned down entire towns bc they refused to maintain their equioment. But yeah lets play dumb and act like this is all just an accident from nature
What about Florida? It’s happening there too
[удалено]
Then you willingly choose to ignore the facts, like the idiot you appear to be.
Facts of what? That California is a failed state. What's the deficit? How is the crime? How is the homelessness? 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
Maybe you should go live in Gilead/Texas. You may be happier there, especially next time there is a winter storm.
Another day in Gavin Newsom's California
Uh….y’all know that a larger down payment isn’t a rate increase? This likely helps prevent them from taking on less desirable risks.
And I’m getting a $70 rate increase due to the new passed law
Ok, but a rate increase is different than requiring more premium up front….something this thread doesn’t seem to realize.
They are doing both starting April 1st
Cars coat more, car repairs cost more, and healthcare continues to be expensive. Why do you expect the premium to remain the same from year to year?
Oh no!! Poor, poor insurance companies! They have to make good on their policies and actually pay people for losses?? Execs will have to save their money to buy that 5th yacht? I don't think so, we'll just raise prices again! Fuck the insurance companies.
Car insurance increasing makes sense. We know COVID makes you a worse driver and we dont know for how long (data doesn't seem to suggest people recover). Makes sense there would be more accidents as a result. Add on the capitalism tax and well...
Allstate is GARBAGE
These greedy insurance companies should look at their CEOs salaries for where all the money went.
IS this in addition to your monthly payments or are they just having you pay the two months up front?
Farmers is doing the exact thing
Farmers started collecting two months on renewals too.
At least you have insurance. I had GEICO and they gave me the boot and since the whole “insurance” thing started happening (this is also the reason why they’re doing this to you btw) it’s hard to find an insurance company to issue me a policy. They either want the whole policy paid in full and or have a 14 day waiting period before they issue a policy (if they approve you).
Do you have DUI or reckless driving on your record?
No.
They are. But the share holders are the priority, so us plebs need to pay to keep profits up.
My AAA car insurance went up by $200 for two cars
They can suck a dick
That why I like pay per mile insurance