California’s fair plan is under pressure. Will these accounts help?

From Levags and LatanCalmness

This story was originally published by CalmattersS Register about their ballots.

In the final days of the legislative year, the legislators of California sent Gavin Newpom a bill to the governor aimed at strengthening the control of the state -owned fire insurer of the latter, insisting that two of their leaders were joining his management committee.

Assembly Bill 234 The two of the best of the MPs will be placed – Senate President Mike McGuire and the Assembly President Robert Rivas – on the management committee of the fair plan, the insurer who has been appointed by law to sell homeowners who cannot receive them from other insurance companies. However, legislators or their representatives would be members of the committee that cause concerns about the effectiveness of the bill.

The fair plan, which is a union of insurers who are doing business in the state, has grown to over 610,000 policies as of June, which is a 154% increase since September 2021, it has become one of the biggest insurers in California, as other insurance companies have canceled or stopped issuing new policies. The plan is managed by its insurers of members – not by the state. Its management committee consists of mainly insurance representatives, although the governor appoints some members who are not the votes.

Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara asked the governor to sign the bill, saying in a Saturday letter that “it would help further the transparency of this insurance network, while supporting efforts to supervise legislative politicians.”

The bill that the Assembly sent to the governor on Saturday will be in force immediately and comes in a moment of multiple challenges for the fair plan:

• He is upright lawsuits housing owners who say they have been denied coverage for their claims to load smoke from fires in Los Angeles County in January. Hillary McLean, a spokesman for the fair plan, said the plan would not comment on ongoing litigation.
• In July (not a case) Against the plan, accusing him of refusing more than 200 smoke damage and stated that the multi -year investigation of the department found hundreds of violations of consumer protection laws. The fair plan responded to the department’s order to show a cause by requesting a hearing before a state administrative body. McLean said the plan has been working with the department in the last year to “update and clarify the language of his policy about smoke damage, so the language reflects the way these claims are corrected.”
• Earlier this month Gavard Gavin Newo accused the fair plan of breach of court orders Related to the coverage of smoke damage and the call to begin to approve the claims of damage to the smoke “Fast”. McLean said the plan “evaluates the NEWSOM government’s concern about the quick and fair processing of claims. She said the plan would submit a response to the governor this week.

McLean said the plan has no position on the legislation for the leader.

Complaints of smoke damage occur at the top of many other issues that have raised policies and insurance professionals. As CalMatters reported last year and earlier this yearThese include poor customer service, payment delay and slow response times, which the plan attributes to increasing pain.

Lara supported the bill, saying in the argument that “the fair plan … must work more conscious in order to be more responsible to the public.”

The Federation of Consumers in California opposed the bill, criticizing it that there are not enough teeth.

“Is it a bad thing? Probably not” Robert Herel, CEO of the Non -Profit Group, told Calmatters. “But if one thinks that the placement of two members who are not voting on the committee will make sense, they are fooled.”

Herrel, a former deputy commissioner for former commissioner Dave Jones, said that the Management Committee for a fair plan – which is mostly drawn up in the insurance industry – will still be able to run business behind closed doors.

Joel Laucher, who has also worked under Jones and is now a program specialist in UNITED Policy Policy users, has used to go to meetings of the management committee on the fair plan as the Chief Commissioner for Tariffs. He said he would have to wait for several meetings as the commission heads entered closed sessions.

“They said their executive sessions were privileged, confidential and not open to the department,” Laucher said.

But he said it could still be useful to have state lawmakers in the Commission who can learn more about the work of the fair plan. “Having direct experience as a legislator can provide them with some understanding and information that they may need to initiate broader authorities in the fair plan,” he said.

During Friday’s vote, Democratic Senator Anna Kabalerro of Merced said the roles of the two legislators or their representatives would “reflect that of the four existing appointments to the governor.”

Payment of claims in time

The legislature also accepted AB 226Which will allow the fair plan to receive bond funding through the California Bank for Infrastructure and Economic Development. The bill is intended to guarantee the plan, which warned of his constant ability to pay claimsIt will be able to distribute the financing of its payments with claims over time.

The controversial member of the Assembly David Alvarez of Chula Vista, who co -authored the bill, told Calmatters that financing the fair plan was a priority for the legislature.

“If the fair plan becomes insolvent, our (insurance) crisis will become a disaster,” says Senator Roger Nilo, the Republican of the Roshules, who is the Vice -President of the Senate Insurance Committee.

Automatic payments

And finally, deputies sent AB 290 on the governor’s desk. The bill requires a fair plan to create a system for its holders of policies to make automatic payments. Initially, the fair plan opposed the bill, but now there is no position on it, McLean said. The plan will have to create the system to give the holders of the automatic payment capacity by April 1, 2026, but the policy holders cannot be canceled or not renewed if they do not enroll in it.

This article was Originally Published on CalMatters and was reissued under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Noderivatives License.