October 4th, 2024

Helene Should Trigger a National Rethink of Home Insurance

Hurricane Helene revealed flaws in U.S. home insurance, particularly flood coverage. Rising costs and inadequate policies threaten affordable housing, prompting calls for reform and the establishment of Housing Resilience Agencies.

Read original articleLink Icon
Helene Should Trigger a National Rethink of Home Insurance

Hurricane Helene has highlighted significant flaws in the U.S. home insurance system, particularly regarding flood coverage. Many affected homeowners lack flood insurance, which is often not included in standard policies. The rising costs of home insurance, which have increased by about 20% over the past two years, are exacerbating the affordable housing crisis, as developers struggle with soaring premiums. The situation is dire in regions like Appalachia, where only a small percentage of homeowners have flood insurance, leaving many without resources to rebuild after the storm. Experts suggest that the current insurance model, which prioritizes profit over protection, needs reform. Proposals include establishing Housing Resilience Agencies to provide public disaster insurance and coordinate risk reduction efforts, shifting the burden of mitigation from individuals to community-level initiatives. This approach contrasts sharply with current practices, particularly in Florida, where the state has incentivized private insurers at the expense of public coverage. The ongoing crisis calls for a reevaluation of how risk is managed and shared, potentially leading to mandatory coverage for all property owners, similar to models in other countries. Without significant changes, the home insurance crisis is likely to worsen, further displacing vulnerable populations and straining public resources.

- Hurricane Helene exposed gaps in flood insurance coverage for homeowners.

- Home insurance costs have risen significantly, impacting affordable housing development.

- Experts advocate for the creation of Housing Resilience Agencies to improve disaster preparedness.

- Current insurance practices prioritize profit, leaving many without adequate coverage.

- A reevaluation of risk management and potential mandatory coverage is necessary to address the crisis.

Link Icon 6 comments
By @lesuorac - 4 months
> “Extending mandatory coverage to all property owners,” in line with the approach taken in New Zealand, “could become thinkable in a way that it never has been before.”

I'm not sure that's the correct solution here. Giving people flood insurance when they build on the beach in Florida is just a bad idea. There is going to be a flood claim; it's not really insuring against a risk, you know the risk is going to happen several times while they own the house.

Pretty sure the actual solution is earlier in the article. Update the flood maps to reflect the current risk. Sure, people might not be able to afford a property (from the extra insurance requirement) in a flood zone; but from what I can see in the article, people can't afford to rebuilt after Helene so all they did was move the affordability issue from when they bought the house to when Helene hit.

By @figglestar - 3 months
Isn't flood insurance already nationalized? My understanding was about 100 years ago these properties in flood zones were deemed un-insurable by the private industry and the government decided to fill in the gap, probably because a lot of wealthy landowners owned these properties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Flood_Insurance_Progr...

Around here there is a local grocery store that has flooded requiring a complete gutting 3 times in the last 20 years. And they're rebuilding it again. Seems like insanity to me but if some one is willing to sell you subsidized insurance for this and there isn't an available plot of land infested with NIMBY red tape I can understand why they do it. I can't understand why anyone thinks this is a good way to set things up though.

By @pjfin123 - 3 months
> Hurricane Helene crashed into an insurance sector facing a series of potentially existential questions, and a policy landscape in which the United States has left key decisions about how communities prepare for and recover from disasters in the hands of companies that exist to turn a profit—not provide protection. “Right now, we’re essentially leaving all of these decisions about land use and where risk mitigation happens up to insurance companies,” says Moira Birss, a longtime organizer and fellow at the Climate & Community Institute.

Insurance companies are probably the entity best incentivized and infotmed to make decisions about where to build houses and what risk mitigation to do.

By @KennyBlanken - 4 months
No, it should trigger a national rethink on where we allow people to keep rebuilding over and over - or at least provide public services and funding - local, state, or federal for those areas.
By @nephy - 3 months
Yes, and that rethink should be that insurance of all forms is a racket.
By @mikewarot - 4 months
While we're at this rethink, let us also consider the wisdom of stretching infrastructure miles into the countryside without pricing it in to utility services.