One Clear Sign of Climate Change, Not That Retards Won't Still Be Retards

[martin]

A last-resort insurance policy with fewer homeowner protections and less government oversight is booming, a Washington Post analysis finds, as traditional insurers continue to back away from areas of the country most vulnerable to extreme weather.

The policies are growing fastest in California, Florida, Texas and South Carolina because increasingly intensifying weather and massive disasters are putting more insurers on the hook for substantial claim payouts. Last year in California, insurance companies paid out $23 billion in homeowners claims, according to industry data.

The amount of premiums written under what is known as “surplus” or “excess” insurance lines has nearly tripled nationwide in the past five years, from about $1.5 billion in 2021 to $4.1 billion in 2025, according to data from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) — which insurers submit to the organization — and analyzed by the independent firm Weiss Ratings and provided to The Post. The Post reviewed the data and the Weiss analysis.

While this represents only a small share of the total $187 billion in premiums written in the United States each year, according to the Weiss data, industry experts say they reflect a problem where Americans living in the most weather-exposed places are becoming harder to insure.

In 2025, the Treasury Department’s Federal Insurance Office released a report showing how, due to climate-related events, millions of Americans were finding it harder to obtain insurance and had to pay more for it.

And as more insurers pull back or limit coverage, more Americans have struggled to find it and have sought out surplus line plans. Independent brokers often steer homeowners to surplus policies when they cannot obtain a traditional plan, though carriers also advertise directly to consumers.

These once-niche policies, which date to the late 1800s, historically covered commercial, high-risk or unusual properties.
They can sometimes be more expensive and often have more limitations and restrictive clauses, including arbitration clauses stating that homeowners cannot select their own contractors or price adjusters.

Experts said they have fewer consumer protections, prompting some advocates and state regulators to warn that homeowners may get lower payouts in the event of a disaster.

California’s surplus line industry is expanding more than almost any other state, according to The Post and Weiss analysis of NAIC data, which only includes insurers based in the U.S. Since 2021, the amount of surplus premiums written in California increased tenfold from $135 million to nearly $1.3 billion, now accounting for 7 percent of all homeowners premiums in the state compared with just 1 percent five years ago.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2026/08/31/extreme-weather-escalates-this-last-resort-insurance-policy-is-booming/

 

[Diogenes]

A last-resort insurance policy with fewer homeowner protections and less government oversight is booming, a Washington Post analysis finds, as traditional insurers continue to back away from areas of the country most vulnerable to extreme weather. The policies are growing fastest in California, Florida, Texas and South Carolina because increasingly intensifying weather and massive disasters are putting more insurers on the hook for substantial claim payouts. Last year in California, insurance companies paid out $23 billion in homeowners claims, according to industry data. The amount of premiums written under what is known as “surplus” or “excess” insurance lines has nearly tripled nationwide in the past five years, from about $1.5 billion in 2021 to $4.1 billion in 2025, according to data from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) — which insurers submit to the organization — and analyzed by the independent firm Weiss Ratings and provided to The Post. The Post reviewed the data and the Weiss analysis. While this represents only a small share of the total $187 billion in premiums written in the United States each year, according to the Weiss data, industry experts say they reflect a problem where Americans living in the most weather-exposed places are becoming harder to insure. In 2025, the Treasury Department’s Federal Insurance Office released a report showing how, due to climate-related events, millions of Americans were finding it harder to obtain insurance and had to pay more for it. And as more insurers pull back or limit coverage, more Americans have struggled to find it and have sought out surplus line plans. Independent brokers often steer homeowners to surplus policies when they cannot obtain a traditional plan, though carriers also advertise directly to consumers. These once-niche policies, which date to the late 1800s, historically covered commercial, high-risk or unusual properties. They can sometimes be more expensive and often have more limitations and restrictive clauses, including arbitration clauses stating that homeowners cannot select their own contractors or price adjusters. Experts said they have fewer consumer protections, prompting some advocates and state regulators to warn that homeowners may get lower payouts in the event of a disaster.
California’s surplus line industry is expanding more than almost any other state, according to The Post and Weiss analysis of NAIC data, which only includes insurers based in the U.S. Since 2021, the amount of surplus premiums written in California increased tenfold from $135 million to nearly $1.3 billion, now accounting for 7 percent of all homeowners premiums in the state compared with just 1 percent five years ago.

The Washington Post article exists, the surplus-lines growth numbers look consistent with industry data, and weather-related losses are a real driver. Framing the whole thing as “one clear sign of climate change” is an oversimplification.


The OP (martin) posted today’s WaPo piece on the boom in surplus/excess-lines homeowners policies—the less-regulated, often narrower “last-resort” private coverage people buy when admitted carriers won’t write them. The article and NAIC/Weiss figures cited there show surplus homeowners premiums rising from about $1.5 billion in 2021 to $4.1 billion in 2025, with the fastest growth in California, Florida, Texas, and South Carolina. California’s surplus homeowners book grew roughly tenfold. Those numbers track other sources (AM Best, S&P, stamping-office reports).


That is a real market shift. Traditional insurers have pulled back or non-renewed in high-loss areas after large wildfire and hurricane years, higher reconstruction costs, and rising reinsurance prices. Homeowners then land in surplus lines or state residual plans (FAIR/Citizens).


It is not a clean thermometer of climate change.

• California combines genuine wildfire losses (including the very expensive 2025 LA-area fires) with a long-standing regulatory constraint. Proposition 103 limited how fast rates could rise and, until recently, how freely insurers could use catastrophe models or pass through reinsurance costs. That mismatch between allowed premiums and expected losses is a large part of why carriers stopped writing. Development in the wildland-urban interface added exposure.
• Florida is the clearest counter-example to a simple climate story. For years Florida produced a wildly disproportionate share of U.S. homeowners-insurance lawsuits (often 70%+ of national suits on a much smaller share of claims) because of one-way attorney fees and assignment-of-benefits practices. After the 2022–2023 reforms (SB 2-A, HB 837), lawsuit volume dropped sharply, new carriers entered, and Citizens—the state residual market—fell from a peak of about 1.4 million policies to the high 200,000s. That improvement happened while hurricanes still occurred. Litigation and rate-adequacy problems were the dominant near-term drivers, not a sudden new climate signal.
• Nationwide, reconstruction inflation, more high-value property in hazardous locations, and reinsurance cycles also matter. Surplus lines exist precisely to price risks the admitted market cannot or will not take under current rules.

"Climate change" AKA weather is one input into catastrophe models and loss trends. It is not the only, or in every state the main, reason the admitted market retreated and surplus lines filled the gap.

The article lives in WaPo’s climate section and leans on “extreme weather” language; the OP’s title treats that framing as settled. It's not.

The underlying numbers are real. The causal claim is not as clear as the headline.

 

[Librtlover]

What exactly is your point, Martin? You going to team up with Algore to over tax the American
People in support of finding something/anything that will prevent climate change.

 

[Diogenes]

What exactly is your point, Martin? You going to team up with Algore to over tax the American People in support of finding something/anything that will prevent climate change.

You have to ask?

 

[cawacko]

A last-resort insurance policy with fewer homeowner protections and less government oversight is booming, a Washington Post analysis finds, as traditional insurers continue to back away from areas of the country most vulnerable to extreme weather.

The policies are growing fastest in California, Florida, Texas and South Carolina because increasingly intensifying weather and massive disasters are putting more insurers on the hook for substantial claim payouts. Last year in California, insurance companies paid out $23 billion in homeowners claims, according to industry data.

The amount of premiums written under what is known as “surplus” or “excess” insurance lines has nearly tripled nationwide in the past five years, from about $1.5 billion in 2021 to $4.1 billion in 2025, according to data from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) — which insurers submit to the organization — and analyzed by the independent firm Weiss Ratings and provided to The Post. The Post reviewed the data and the Weiss analysis.

While this represents only a small share of the total $187 billion in premiums written in the United States each year, according to the Weiss data, industry experts say they reflect a problem where Americans living in the most weather-exposed places are becoming harder to insure.

In 2025, the Treasury Department’s Federal Insurance Office released a report showing how, due to climate-related events, millions of Americans were finding it harder to obtain insurance and had to pay more for it.

And as more insurers pull back or limit coverage, more Americans have struggled to find it and have sought out surplus line plans. Independent brokers often steer homeowners to surplus policies when they cannot obtain a traditional plan, though carriers also advertise directly to consumers.

These once-niche policies, which date to the late 1800s, historically covered commercial, high-risk or unusual properties.
They can sometimes be more expensive and often have more limitations and restrictive clauses, including arbitration clauses stating that homeowners cannot select their own contractors or price adjusters.

Experts said they have fewer consumer protections, prompting some advocates and state regulators to warn that homeowners may get lower payouts in the event of a disaster.

California’s surplus line industry is expanding more than almost any other state, according to The Post and Weiss analysis of NAIC data, which only includes insurers based in the U.S. Since 2021, the amount of surplus premiums written in California increased tenfold from $135 million to nearly $1.3 billion, now accounting for 7 percent of all homeowners premiums in the state compared with just 1 percent five years ago.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2026/08/31/extreme-weather-escalates-this-last-resort-insurance-policy-is-booming/

Most threads on climate issues on here turn into the same partisan bickering and don't actually go anywhere.

With the obvious caveat that nothing we say here changes anything in the real world, what would you like seen done here?

Because I'm passionate about the need for new housing I'll speak about that and the Bay Area, but it's by no means exclusive to us. We have a housing shortage and a lot of people care about the environment. One way to deal with both is building higher density housing in areas near public transit.

Yet you will find a lot of people who fight that tooth and nail. And the result is less housing built and often when it is built it's built further and further out meaning more people in cars and much longer commutes.

That's just one example but it speaks to real world realities trumping ideological beliefs. Getting people to change their lifestyle is a lot easier said than done.

 

[martin]

Most threads on climate issues on here turn into the same partisan bickering and don't actually go anywhere.

With the obvious caveat that nothing we say here changes anything in the real world, what would you like seen done here?

Because I'm passionate about the need for new housing I'll speak about that and the Bay Area, but it's by no means exclusive to us. We have a housing shortage and a lot of people care about the environment. One way to deal with both is building higher density housing in areas near public transit.

Yet you will find a lot of people who fight that tooth and nail. And the result is less housing built and often when it is built it's built further and further out meaning more people in cars and much longer commutes.

That's just one example but it speaks to real world realities trumping ideological beliefs. Getting people to change their lifestyle is a lot easier said than done.

Before people will change anything they have to believe it is needed. That change is what needs to be done.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The Washington Post article exists, the surplus-lines growth numbers look consistent with industry data, and weather-related losses are a real driver. Framing the whole thing as “one clear sign of climate change” is an oversimplification.


The OP (martin) posted today’s WaPo piece on the boom in surplus/excess-lines homeowners policies—the less-regulated, often narrower “last-resort” private coverage people buy when admitted carriers won’t write them. The article and NAIC/Weiss figures cited there show surplus homeowners premiums rising from about $1.5 billion in 2021 to $4.1 billion in 2025, with the fastest growth in California, Florida, Texas, and South Carolina. California’s surplus homeowners book grew roughly tenfold. Those numbers track other sources (AM Best, S&P, stamping-office reports).


That is a real market shift. Traditional insurers have pulled back or non-renewed in high-loss areas after large wildfire and hurricane years, higher reconstruction costs, and rising reinsurance prices. Homeowners then land in surplus lines or state residual plans (FAIR/Citizens).


It is not a clean thermometer of climate change.

• California combines genuine wildfire losses (including the very expensive 2025 LA-area fires) with a long-standing regulatory constraint. Proposition 103 limited how fast rates could rise and, until recently, how freely insurers could use catastrophe models or pass through reinsurance costs. That mismatch between allowed premiums and expected losses is a large part of why carriers stopped writing. Development in the wildland-urban interface added exposure.
• Florida is the clearest counter-example to a simple climate story. For years Florida produced a wildly disproportionate share of U.S. homeowners-insurance lawsuits (often 70%+ of national suits on a much smaller share of claims) because of one-way attorney fees and assignment-of-benefits practices. After the 2022–2023 reforms (SB 2-A, HB 837), lawsuit volume dropped sharply, new carriers entered, and Citizens—the state residual market—fell from a peak of about 1.4 million policies to the high 200,000s. That improvement happened while hurricanes still occurred. Litigation and rate-adequacy problems were the dominant near-term drivers, not a sudden new climate signal.
• Nationwide, reconstruction inflation, more high-value property in hazardous locations, and reinsurance cycles also matter. Surplus lines exist precisely to price risks the admitted market cannot or will not take under current rules.

"Climate change" AKA weather is one input into catastrophe models and loss trends. It is not the only, or in every state the main, reason the admitted market retreated and surplus lines filled the gap.

The article lives in WaPo’s climate section and leans on “extreme weather” language; the OP’s title treats that framing as settled. It's not.

The underlying numbers are real. The causal claim is not as clear as the headline.

Don't forget that California also makes it nearly impossible to do reasonable levels of brush and land management. If you live in the area controlled by the California Coastal Commission, like much of the area the Palisades fire occurred in, it take 8 to 14 months to get a brush clearing permit from them. If you don't you risk fines possibly in excess of $10,000. The process requires a professional level of knowledge to get past the required planning for this.

California Coastal Commission Permits for LA County Beachfront Buyers: 2026 Guide

A 2026 guide to California Coastal Commission permits for Los Angeles County beachfront buyers — CDP timelines, appeal zones, and renovation strategy from Elite Collective.

elitecollectiverealty.com

 

[Diogenes]

Before people will change anything they have to believe it is needed. That change is what needs to be done.

You seriously think people can alter climactic patterns?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Before people will change anything they have to believe it is needed. That change is what needs to be done.

I prefer we start with cheap fixes that might work well like eliminating contrails and switching to natural gas and nuclear. Once the cheap ideas are in place and we see what the results are, we can move on to more expensive ideas that are less sure to work.

 

[Diogenes]

Don't forget that California also makes it nearly impossible to do reasonable levels of brush and land management. If you live in the area controlled by the California Coastal Commission, like much of the area the Palisades fire occurred in, it take 8 to 14 months to get a brush clearing permit from them. If you don't you risk fines possibly in excess of $10,000. The process requires a professional level of knowledge to get past the required planning for this.

None of that matters to the Kooky Klimate Kultists. I believe that ideology has replaced religious dogma. They are trying to halt climatctic variability by passing laws. King Canute's exmaple was lost on these zealots.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

None of that matters to the Kooky Klimate Kultists. I believe that ideology has replaced religious dogma. They are trying to halt climatctic variability by passing laws. King Canute's exmaple was lost on these zealots.

They have fixated on questionable and expensive solutions because their prophets, like AlGore, have spoken. Everything is about CO2 and nothing else matters.

 

[Diogenes]

I prefer we start with cheap fixes that might work well like eliminating contrails and switching to natural gas and nuclear. Once the cheap ideas are in place and we see what the results are, we can move on to more expensive ideas that are less sure to work.

He's a True Believer and you are a heretic. You cannot reason with these people, because reason didn't enter their heads when they joined the Kooky Klimate Kult.

They are literally like the Aztecs sacrificing people to the Sun.

 

[Yakuda]

A last-resort insurance policy with fewer homeowner protections and less government oversight is booming, a Washington Post analysis finds, as traditional insurers continue to back away from areas of the country most vulnerable to extreme weather.

The policies are growing fastest in California, Florida, Texas and South Carolina because increasingly intensifying weather and massive disasters are putting more insurers on the hook for substantial claim payouts. Last year in California, insurance companies paid out $23 billion in homeowners claims, according to industry data.

The amount of premiums written under what is known as “surplus” or “excess” insurance lines has nearly tripled nationwide in the past five years, from about $1.5 billion in 2021 to $4.1 billion in 2025, according to data from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) — which insurers submit to the organization — and analyzed by the independent firm Weiss Ratings and provided to The Post. The Post reviewed the data and the Weiss analysis.

While this represents only a small share of the total $187 billion in premiums written in the United States each year, according to the Weiss data, industry experts say they reflect a problem where Americans living in the most weather-exposed places are becoming harder to insure.

In 2025, the Treasury Department’s Federal Insurance Office released a report showing how, due to climate-related events, millions of Americans were finding it harder to obtain insurance and had to pay more for it.

And as more insurers pull back or limit coverage, more Americans have struggled to find it and have sought out surplus line plans. Independent brokers often steer homeowners to surplus policies when they cannot obtain a traditional plan, though carriers also advertise directly to consumers.

These once-niche policies, which date to the late 1800s, historically covered commercial, high-risk or unusual properties.
They can sometimes be more expensive and often have more limitations and restrictive clauses, including arbitration clauses stating that homeowners cannot select their own contractors or price adjusters.

Experts said they have fewer consumer protections, prompting some advocates and state regulators to warn that homeowners may get lower payouts in the event of a disaster.

California’s surplus line industry is expanding more than almost any other state, according to The Post and Weiss analysis of NAIC data, which only includes insurers based in the U.S. Since 2021, the amount of surplus premiums written in California increased tenfold from $135 million to nearly $1.3 billion, now accounting for 7 percent of all homeowners premiums in the state compared with just 1 percent five years ago.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2026/08/31/extreme-weather-escalates-this-last-resort-insurance-policy-is-booming/

I have way better proof than that

Glacier National Park is removing "glaciers will be gone by 2020" signs

Glacier National Park is removing signs which state that all glaciers will be melted by 2020.

www.krtv.com

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I have way better proof than that

Glacier National Park is removing "glaciers will be gone by 2020" signs

Glacier National Park is removing signs which state that all glaciers will be melted by 2020.

www.krtv.com

No doubt they'll be replacing those signs with ones that read, All the glaciers will be gone by 2040...

 

[cawacko]

Before people will change anything they have to believe it is needed. That change is what needs to be done.

Many of these people who oppose new denser housing near transportation will tell you climate change is an existential crisis. But their desire for less traffic, concern over changing neighborhood character, concern over property values trump actions that people say are better for the environment.

So if people who think its an existential crisis don't want to alter their lifestyle...

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Many of these people who oppose new denser housing near transportation will tell you climate change is an existential crisis. But their desire for less traffic, concern over changing neighborhood character, concern over property values trump actions that people say are better for the environment.

So if people who think its an existential crisis don't want to alter their lifestyle...

Of course, higher urban density creates a much greater urban heat island effect that is far worse than Gorebal Warming ever was.

 

[Diogenes]

Say, don't some high priests of the Kooky Klimate Kult own valuable mansions near the sea?

 

[cawacko]

Of course, higher urban density creates a much greater urban heat island effect that is far worse than Gorebal Warming ever was.

Sure, there are even trade offs with density but on the whole it is better for the environment than sprawl.

This board is what it is. Threads on climate are usually started so Democrats can say see we care about climate change and Republicans don't so we're good and they're bad.

When it comes to real world action though, it's not that simple.

 

[zymurgy]

You’re skipping right past the actual argument. Nobody is disputing that climate changes, that extreme weather happens, or that insurers react to increased losses. The disputed question is how much of the change is actually attributable to human activity, and whether the policies being proposed would materially change it. Pointing to rising insurance premiums does not answer that question; it simply assumes the conclusion.


And there’s an irony here that never seems to get addressed. The same political camp constantly tells us that human consumption is driving the climate problem, while also arguing that wealth should be transferred from people who save and invest more of their income to people who are more likely to spend it.


So apparently consumption is destroying the planet, but increasing consumption is also part of the solution. That contradiction deserves a little more scrutiny than another Washington Post article simply declaring “extreme weather = climate change.”

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Sure, there are even trade offs with density but on the whole it is better for the environment than sprawl.

I'd say that's questionable. There are tradeoffs. High urban density is likely also worse for humans.

This board is what it is. Threads on climate are usually started so Democrats can say see we care about climate change and Republicans don't so we're good and they're bad.

When it comes to real world action though, it's not that simple.

True enough. When it comes to these threads, science usually takes a backseat to rhetoric.