Progressive seems to be trying to get some more new business.
Just moved, for now to Progressive as they gave me total rate for the house + cars same as I had 2 years ago from my ex-insurance.
$3,500 for the house for 1 year and $800 for two cars for 6 months ($1k deductible).
Still half-expecting them to jack up the price either now “based on the review” or jack up auto insurance for the renewal at 6 months. But we will see.
They will definitely do this because the “new customer discount” will expire. Source: I’m a previous customer that changed companies after 6 months because of this
I expect that - the only question is by how much😂
I was in fear of this too. I moved to Allstate cause it was a lot cheaper. My rate only went up $120 at renewal. Wasn’t too bad.
My wagoneer insurance is more than my EQS AMG lol
I was worried about this as well so I stood pat with State Farm as their homeowners was cheaper and the delta between the two companies for house and cars was only a few hundred bucks a year. I figured that spread would be a lot closer come renewal, making the hassle of switching everything over not worth it.
I’m looking at hurricane Milton, and I’d like to remind everyone that unless you live in Florida or California, you absolutely hate money if you insure with a company that does business in those states. Some of you big brains will say, but wait insurance is regulated at the state level and they can’t do that! My reply would be to open your eyes and remember they’re for profit companies.
Brokers are ready for Milton
Florida residents are in for a shock at their next renewal period. I spent a week trying to get insurance in NYC for a single family home with quotes $3k plus until I got reasonable price. It’s insane that my investment property insurance is less than owner occupied. Car insurance quotes were double for same coverage moving literally 10 blocks from where I am now.
I think of it like life insurance. When you buy life insurance, you get thrown into the same bucket of health as others who match your health. If you’re very healthy, you get put in to the healthy bucket. If you have bad health conditions, you get thrown into the bad health bucket. While there are some exceptions like DUI, claims history, etc, why would you ever want to be anywhere near the same bucket as folks in Florida and California? The states as a whole are complete and total net losses for insurance companies. They need to make it up from somewhere now don’t they? If they raise across the board in other states and have large gains, it can be an offset. I don’t know about you, but I won’t be a part of that.
Now take it a step further. If all of a sudden your large healthy bucket says, hey why are my rates so high all of a sudden. They’re all going to leave too. So, then you have an insurance company stuck with a bunch of unhealthy people/bad states and the offset they were pigging out on with healthy people/good states goes to companies where their cost matches their “health.” In short, people are getting smarter and telling the insurance companies to fuck off. One by one, you’ll start seeing major exits from Florida and California if they want to stay in business.
And it will be very profitable for those who remain (sky high premiums, lack of competition, more exclusions, etc).
I don’t see it. You can raise premiums as much as you’d like, but if people just keep dying (my analogy), it just won’t matter. If others saw a way to be profitable, they would’ve stayed.
Buy your house in an llc and rent it to yourself?
I shopped my investment house around for new companies and majority won’t insure it with the one who do quoting $5k. I think what I have with travelers insurance is a glitch in their system and I will never leave them.
California and Florida are in somewhat of different place re climate issues. California has wild fire threats but those aren’t an issue for downtown LA, SF or dense suburbs. Insurers in California can stop writing policies for 30% of zip codes to avoid the fire risk. In Florida you have to exit almost the whole state to avoid hurricane risks. No major city, maybe with th exception of Orlando, is really safe.
While I disagree with you on exposure to California, I unfortunately agree with you re exposure to Florida. You just cant raise rates enough to cover for the loses caused by the increased volume and severity of storms due to warmer ocean water.
Wildfires are an issue for many dense suburbs in CA, and LA and SF have some of the highest homeowner insurance rates per zip code in the state.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2024/california-home-insurance-costs-map/
Wildfires are an issue but look at the numbers over the last decade. How many homes are destroyed per year by wildfires in California. From 3,000 to 20,000. Helene and Milton are very likely to destroy more homes in a week than have been lost to wildfire damage in the past decade.
And yes, people in CA pay more for insurance than most but that is because there housing is worth more than most. Paying $5k a year for insurance is very different on a million dollar home versus a $250k home.
Yes, I get it. My points were that dense suburbs are at risk for wildfires and even in non-rural areas the wildfire component has raised rates as well.
Everyone made good points. Auto is a big detractor when it comes to California too. The brilliant regulators won’t let credit score be used in pricing either in CA.
Living in a SoCal all my life, there are no wild fires in most of LA Beverly Hills, Hollywood Hills and all the coastal towns, Manhattan Bch, Redondo, Herbosa. Same for much of Orange County. These cities include a huge portion of California’s population. And $1 million is basically a starter home in some areas, getting more and more scarce. $2 to $10 million is pretty common. So yea insurance will be more. Only areas that burn here are in the mountains in San Gabriel federal land. Malibu is the only place where homes burn in SoCal and those are further from the coast. The homes by the coast I’ve never seen burn in Malibu. Northern Ca is about the same.
This is laughably incorrect and grossly overbroad as a conclusion. I lived in SoCal for many years and lived through some of these fires.
Orange County does indeed have wildfires and has had several in the last few years.
There are plenty of areas that burn in LA, Riverside and San Bernardino counties that are not in the San Gabriels.
Nobody ever said there were wildfires in MB, Redondo or Hermosa.
No fires in the Hollywood Hills? The Hollywood sign almost burned a few years back in a wildfire.
No wildfires in LA? The Getty Fire could have burned Brentwood and BH to the ground.
Malibu? No fires on the coast there? Ridiculous. The Woolsley fire burned down to the coast and houses on and around Point Dume on the coast burned to the ground with the fire on both sides of PCH. The two fires in '93 burned both ends of Malibu and parts of each were down to the water. It was so bad it led to some of those huge rock and mudslides that washed out PCH in parts in 1994-1995.
It goes on and on.
NorCal? Don’t even get me started.
You are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts.
