1 in 10 Los Angeles homes don't have insurance, says one estimate

[Zorro]

Roughly one out of every 10 Los Angeles homeowners lacks insurance – a share on par with statewide trends, according to one estimate.

My trusty spreadsheet reviewed LendingTree’s tracking of how many owners lacked home insurance in 2023. Analysts at the loan-referral service looked at the Census Bureau’s housing cost data and assumed owners spending less than $100 in a year on insurance meant no coverage.

In Los Angeles County, struck in recent days by a series of devastating wildfires, 9.8% of homeowners were uninsured, by this math – 154,100 out of 1.57 million homes.

Across all of California, LendingTree found 806,600 owners without coverage out of 7.66 million residences. That’s 10.5% of all homeowners.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2025/01/11/1-in-10-los-angeles-homes-dont-have-insurance-says-one-estimate/

[bucolic_frolic]

1. Cat coverage should be required to be offered, and pronto!

Of course reducing the insured amount every year due to depreciation or aging amounts to a similar thing because it reduces total payout in the event of calamity. BUT Cat coverage would prevent all claims below a limit, say $30K. The current system wheedles that number down from the top, not the bottom.

[3Hotdogs]

3. In parts of N.J., the problems are flooding and wild fires.

The fires are mostly in the Pine Barrens and can destroy property. Flooding is a more extensive problem and not just in shore areas. My step daughter bought a beautiful house off of Long Beach Island. It is on a lagoon but it experienced no damage during prior hurricanes.

I asked if she was worried about flooding. "No, we have flood insurance."

The problem is, the insurance cost is substantially rising every year.

On the island itself, are $multiM houses. A guy I know, bought a $2m house. Tore it down to build a $12M house. The island has been breached during prior hurricanes - from the ocean to the bay and people were trapped on the island. That was in 1949.

The state is buying out homeowners in river flood zones and tearing down the houses. They are not doing the same in shore areas.

Then there is the conflict between the need for flood protection and low income housing. Each new home leads to increased water run-off during storms. That leads to flooding. Real estate and construction interests support new construction. Environmentalists support limiting construction, at least in flood zones.

[MotownPgh]

2. I'm not in Cali, but have considered

dropping my homeowners insurance due to substantial rate increases.

[Jacson6]

7. As long as your mortgage allows you not to have coverage you can do it.

Otherwise you have to buy it.

[LauraInLA]

4. I'm really surprised it's not higher, especially with homeowners who've recently lost coverage.

[drray23]

5. Its not higher because most people carry a mortgage

And if you do, you cant drop your insurance, the lender will force you to keep one.

[Buddyzbuddy]

6. Homes with no loans

Many homes in the past few years purchased by investors were bought with cash thereby negating the requirement for homeowners insurance. If you're a hedge fund or very rich investor, you have the funds on hand to repair or rebuild a home that is destroyed. But, when a catastrophic event occurs such as the fires in Los Angeles they will be in for a rude awakening. Check out the ownership and developer of Pallisades Village.
So much devastation to so many in such a short amount of time. I sincerely feel bad for all of you and your community.