“It was heartbreaking and shocking ... because the distance from where the sea was when I was young, nobody in this area would ever imagine it will get this far,” Adzo said.
for all of its home insurance customers in the state to help the insurer rebuild its capital following the Los Angeles wildfires.State Farm has argued the emergency rate hikes are necessary to help the company avoid a “dire” financial crisis that could force them to drop more California policies. The state’s largest home insurer said it was already struggling financially before this year but the LA fires, which destroyed more than 16,000 buildings in January, have made things worse.
The increase will apply to all of the roughly 1 million homeowners State Farm insures in the state.The decision comes as California is undergoing a yearslong effort to entice insurers to continue doing business in the state as wildfires increasingly destroy entire neighborhoods. In 2023, several major companies, includingbecause of high fire risk. Last year, Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara unveiled a slate of regulations aimed at giving insurers more latitude to raise premiums
in high-risk areas. Those rules kick in this year.State Farm initially asked for a 22% rate increase for homeowners but revised it to 17% during a recent hearing before an administrative judge. The request also includes a 38% hike for rental owners and 15% for tenants. The new rates will take effect in June. In exchange, State Farm will get a $400 million cash infusion from its parent company and agree to halt some nonrenewals through the end of this year.
On Tuesday, administrative Judge Karl Frederic Seligman ordered a ruling supporting State Farm’s request, calling it “a rescue mission to stabilize State Farm’s financial condition while safeguarding policyholders.”
Lara adopted the recommendation the same day. The new rates are temporary until the state has a chance to consider State Farm’s request from last year for a 30% rate increase for homeowners. The hearings for that request are set for October.The judge did not say which official or officials could be held in contempt. He is giving the government until April 23 to explain the steps it has taken to remedy the violation, or instead identify the individual or people who made the decision not to turn the planes around.
In a separate case, the administration has acknowledged mistakenly deportingto the El Salvador prison, but does not intend to return him to the U.S. despite a Supreme Court ruling that the administration must “facilitate” his release. The judge in that case has said she is determining whether to undertake contempt proceedings, saying officials “appear to have done nothing to aid in Abrego Garcia’s release from custody and return to the United States.”
Boasberg, who was nominated for the federal bench by Democratic President Barack Obama, had ordered the administration last month not to deport anyone in its custody under the Alien Enemies Act after Trump invoked the 1798 wartime law over what he claimed was an invasion by the Venezuelan gangWhen Boasberg was told there were already planes in the air headed to El Salvador, which has agreed to house deported migrants in a