SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
consumer federation of america
Amid LA Inferno, Home Insurers Under Fire for Policy Cancellations
One observer said it "really feels like the climate crisis is putting the home insurance industry on a fast track to being almost as reviled as the health insurance industry."
Jan 08, 2025
As deadly wildfire incinerated more than 1,000 homes and other structures in Los Angeles County this week, insurance companies are sparking outrage for having recently canceled homeowners' policies across California—including in some of the areas hit hardest by the current blazes.
More than 1,000 homes, businesses, and other buildings have burned in the Palisades, Hurst, and Eaton fires—the latter of which has killed two people, The Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday. Fueled by fierce Santa Ana winds and extraordinarily dry conditions, all three fires were at 0% containment as of Wednesday afternoon, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE).
Authorities have issued mandatory evacuation orders for more than 80,000 residents. Los Angeles County Fire Chief Anthony Marrone told reporters Wednesday morning that a "high number of people who didn't evacuate" suffered serious injuries. Hundreds of thousands of area residents are also without power.
CAL FIRE said on Wednesday afternoon that the largest of the three blazes, the Palisades Fire, had burned more than 11,000 acres, while the Eaton Fire had scorched over 10,600 acres and the Hurst Fire topped 500 acres burned. Firefighters battling the Palisades Fire reported hydrants coming up dry.
Amid increased extreme weather events driven by the climate emergency, insurance companies have faced criticism for canceling policies and pulling out of states with elevated wildfire or hurricane risk.
State Farm, one of California's largest insurers, announced last year that it would not renew 30,000 home insurance policies throughout the state—including at least hundreds in areas affected by the current wildfires—explaining that the move was meant to avert a "financial failure" that would "detrimentally impact the entire market."
Other insurance companies have taken similar action, leaving their customers scrambling to find coverage.
Michael DeLong, research and advocacy associate at the Consumer Federation of America, told Common Dreams Wednesday that while climate-driven extreme weather has "made many areas riskier to insure," insurance companies are also canceling policies because "they're trying to take advantage of the situation of rising risks and rising costs to weaken consumer protections."
"They've been waging a campaign against Proposition 103… a ballot initiative that got passed in the late 1980s that, among other things, puts in place a lot of consumer protections about insurance," he added. "This has been a big deal for consumers and it's helped keep rates down. But insurance companies really hate these consumer protections and have been trying to weaken them."
In a Wednesday interview with Common Dreams, Jamie Court, president of the Los Angeles-based group Consumer Watchdog, noted that "under Prop 103, we could challenge rate hikes, and we saved $1 billion by challenging rate hikes that were too high last year."
However, advocates say that California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara's new "sustainable insurance strategy" will make it harder to challenge rates and lacks transparency and public input.
DeLong said Lara is "allowing the net cost of reinsurance to be passed on to consumers."
Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara Reinsurance Regulation To Pump Up Homeowners Rates By 40% Without Guarantees of New Wildfire Coverage! With No Opportunity For Public Input! Read: consumerwatchdog.org/insurance/la... #insurance #InsuranceClaims #california
[image or embed]
— Consumer Watchdog (@consumerwatchdog.bsky.social) January 4, 2025 at 10:49 AM
Reinsurance is an arrangement in which insurance companies transfer risk to another insurer to mitigate damages.
"Until a few weeks ago, California's regulations didn't allow the cost of reinsurance to be passed on to consumers, and now they do," DeLong explained. "So that's probably going to drive up costs for consumers. The commissioner and the department say it's going to make the insurance industry more stable—we're kind of skeptical of that."
"Another reform that he's done is allowing the use of catastrophe models in insurance," DeLong added, referring to a risk management tool that helps insurers assess potential financial impacts of disasters. "Every other state allows insurance companies to use them; California did not until recently. Catastrophe models can be helpful and useful; the problem is that many catastrophe models aren't that good; they're based on inaccurate or incomplete information and they don't have any transparency."
Court also decried the lack of transparency in catastrophe models, which he said "can say anything they want, and then we have to pay the rate." He also criticized Lara's proposal to allow insurers to hike rates in exchange for a purported commitment to cover more properties in wildfire areas.
Lara said last year that "insurance companies will write no less than 85% of their statewide market share in wildfire distressed areas,"
However, Court cautioned that Lara is assuming "that the companies are actually going to increase their footprint in wildfire areas."
"When you look at the details... there are these big loopholes," he said. "Insurance companies have to commit to 85% [wildfire area saturation] within two years—or they can do 5% more than they're doing now. So if they're at 0%, they can go to 5%. This is complete bullshit."
As coverage becomes more difficult to obtain, hundreds of thousands of California homeowners have turned to the state's FAIR Plan, an insurer of last resort, which has more than doubled the number of policies issued since 2020.
"If the FAIR Plan is the only thing you can do, take that," DeLong said. "In the meantime, you can reach out to the Department of Insurance and let them know that you want them to protect consumers and reject excessive rate increases."
"You can also try mitigation measures to reduce risk, like clearing brush around your home, improving your roof so it's a Class A roof, which means it's very difficult to catch on fire, you can take measures to prevent embers from starting fires on your property," he added. "The problem is that all of that costs money, and not everyone may be able to afford that… California has recently started some proposals to provide grants to consumers to undertake these measures, and these should be expanded even more."
"There is some good news," DeLong said. "The California Department of Insurance is working on a public catastrophe model, one that would have opportunities for input from consumers, that would be based on data that's fair and open."
"However, that's going to take at least a couple of years to get off the ground," he added.
Court concurred. "We're a long way away from that, and it's not even going to be something that companies have to use, it's something that would be supplemental," he said of the public model. "I think it's giving lip service, but I think it's the right direction. It just needs to be much more aggressive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
New Rule From Agency Trump Wants Destroyed Would Save Consumers $5 Billion Per Year in Overdraft Fees
One advocate called the CFPB's new rule "a major milestone in its effort to level the playing field between regular people and big banks."
Dec 12, 2024
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, one of President-elect Donald Trump's top expected targets as he plans to dismantle parts of the federal government after taking office in January, announced on Thursday its latest action aimed at saving households across the U.S. hundreds of dollars in fees each year.
The agency issued a final rule to close a 55-year-old loophole that has allowed big banks to collect billions of dollars in overdraft fees from consumers each year,
The rule makes significant updates to federal regulations for financial institutions' overdraft fees, ordering banks with more than $10 billion in assets to choose between several options:
- Capping their overdraft fees at $5;
- Capping fees at an amount that covers costs and losses; or
- Disclosing the terms of overdraft loans as they do with other loans, giving consumers a choice regarding whether they open a line of overdraft credit and allowing them to comparison-shop.
The final rule is expected to save Americans $5 billion annually in overdraft fees, or about $225 per household that pays overdraft fees.
Adam Rust, director of financial services at the Consumer Federation of America, called the rule "a major milestone" in the CFPB's efforts "to level the playing field between regular people and big banks."
"No one should have to pick between paying a junk overdraft fee or buying groceries," said Rust. "This rule gives banks a choice: they can charge a reasonable fee that does not exploit their customers, or they can treat these loan products as an extension of credit and comply with existing lending laws."
The rule is set to go into effect next October, but the incoming Trump administration could put its implementation in jeopardy. Trump has named billionaire Tesla CEO Elon Musk to co-lead the Department of Government Efficiency, an advisory body he hopes to create. Musk has signaled that he wants to "delete" the CFPB, echoing a proposal within the right-wing policy agenda Project 2025, which was co-authored by many officials from the first Trump term.
"The CFPB is cracking down on these excessive junk fees and requiring big banks to come clean about the interest rate they're charging on overdraft loans."
"It is critical that incoming and returning members of Congress and President-elect Trump side with voters struggling in this economy and support the CFPB's overdraft rule," said Lauren Saunders, associate director at the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC). "This rule is an example of the CFPB's hard work for everyday Americans."
In recent decades, banks have used overdraft fees as profit drivers which increase consumer costs by billions of dollars every year while causing tens of millions to lose access to banking services and face negative credit reports that can harm their financial futures.
The Federal Reserve Board exempted banks from Truth in Lending Act protections in 1969, allowing them to charge overdraft fees without disclosing their terms to consumers.
"For far too long, the largest banks have exploited a legal loophole that has drained billions of dollars from Americans' deposit accounts," said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra. "The CFPB is cracking down on these excessive junk fees and requiring big banks to come clean about the interest rate they're charging on overdraft loans."
Government watchdog Accountable.US credited the CFPB with cracking down on overdraft fees despite aggressive campaigning against the action by Wall Street, which has claimed the fees have benefits for American families.
Accountable.US noted that Republican Reps. Patrick McHenry of North Carolina and Andy Barr of Kentucky have appeared to lift their criticisms of the rule straight from industry talking points, claiming that reforming overdraft fee rules would "limit consumer choice, stifle innovation, and ultimately raise the cost of banking for all consumers."
Similarly, in April Barr claimed at a hearing that "the vast majority of Americans" believe credit card late fees are legitimate after the Biden administration unveiled a rule capping the fees at $8.
"Americans pay billions in overdraft fees every year, but the CFPB's final rule is putting an end to the $35 surprise fee," said Liz Zelnick, director of the Economic Security and Corporate Power Program at Accountable.US. "Despite efforts to block the rule and protect petty profits by big bank CEOs and lobbyists, the Biden administration's initiative will protect our wallets from an exploitative profit-maximizing tactic."
The new overdraft fee rule follows a $95 million enforcement action against Navy Federal Credit Union for illegal surprise overdraft fees and similar actions against Wells Fargo, Regions Bank, and Atlantic Union.
Consumers have saved $6 billion annually through the CFPB's initiative to curb junk fees, which has led multiple banks to reduce or eliminate their fees.
"Big banks that charge high fees for overdrafts are not providing a courtesy to consumers—it's a form of predatory lending that exacerbates wealth disparities and racial inequalities," said Carla Sanchez-Adams, senior attorney at NCLC. "The CFPB's overdraft rule ensures that the most vulnerable consumers are protected from big banks trying to pad their profits with junk fees."
Keep ReadingShow Less
CFPB Aims to Protect Workers From Paycheck Advance Fees
"The CFPB's actions will help workers know what they are getting with these products and prevent race-to-the-bottom business practices," said the director of the bureau.
Jul 18, 2024
With inflation rising in recent years, driven by corporate greed according to numerous analyses, the number of people in the U.S. who have relied on paycheck advance products has skyrocketed—but a rule introduced Thursday by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is aimed at ensuring that lenders who provide these products are transparent with financially struggling workers about the fees they can incur.
The CFPB proposed a rule clarifying that paycheck advances, sometimes marketed as "earned wage" products, are consumer loans and are therefore subject to the Truth in Lending Act.
The federal law requires lenders to disclose all fees, interest, and total costs consumers will incur before they use the product.
According to a study released by the CFPB as it announced the new proposed rule, the number of paycheck advance transactions processed by employer-partnered firms ballooned by 90% from 2021-22. More than 7 million workers used paycheck advances to access $22 million over that time period in order to pay for their housing, utilities, and other essentials.
The study notes that "the mismatch between when a family receives income and when a family must make payments for expenses" is a major driver of demand for consumer credit and other products like paycheck advances.
"To reduce their costs, employers have a strong incentive to delay the payment of compensation to workers, which drives demand for short-term credit," reads the analysis.
As such, said Rohit Chopra, director of the CFPB, paycheck advances "are often marketed to and designed for employers, rather than employees."
"The CFPB's interpretive rule will level the playing field and promote competition among short-term small-dollar lenders."
"The CFPB's actions will help workers know what they are getting with these products and prevent race-to-the-bottom business practices," he said.
Th bureau's report focuses on employer-sponsored paycheck advances, which have been increasingly used over and over by the same workers. Employees took out an average of 27 paycheck advance loans per year, according to the CFPB, with the average transaction totaling $106.
"The share of workers in our sample using the product at least once a month increased from 41% in 2021 to nearly 50% in 2022," wrote the CFPB.
The bureau noted that while employers sometimes make paycheck advances fee-free for their employees, workers usually pay fees themselves, including expedited service fees and "tips" that the online services request when completing the transaction.
In the sample the CFPB reviewed, employers paid for less than 5% of the fees incurred by workers
"Across our sample of surveyed companies, in 2021 and 2022, roughly 90% of workers paid at least one earned wage product-related fee," said the bureau. "Among the companies in our sample that collect fees, the average cost per transaction ranged from $0.61 to $4.70. When workers paid a fee, the average size was approximately $3.18. Workers paid an average of $68.88 per year in fees."
Some services provide subscriptions for workers who used paycheck advances regularly; those who utilize them can pay as much as $14.99 per month in subscription fees, according to the CFPB.
"In recent years, workers have seen big increases in wages, but junk fees and high rates on financial products not only chip away at these gains—they take advantage of workers," acting Labor Secretary Julie Su said in a statement.
Adam Rust, director of financial services for the Consumer Federation of America, said the proposed rule shows that "an advance on wages is still a loan that has to be repaid, and no amount of hair-splitting can change it."
"Workers have always relied on wages to repay advances from lenders," said Rust. "Policymakers should be skeptical whenever lenders insist on regulatory exemptions from rules that apply to their competitors. The CFPB's interpretive rule will level the playing field and promote competition among short-term small-dollar lenders."
The CFPB is among several federal agencies that right-wing operatives, many of whom worked in the Trump administration, have pledged to abolish under the policy agenda Project 2025.
Under the Biden administration, in addition to taking aim at paycheck advances, the CFPB has proposed a rule to cap credit card late fees at $8, a move that would save Americans $10 billion per year; prevented discrimination by small business lenders; and fined Wells Fargo $3.7 billion for illegal activity.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular