Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

California

bucolic_frolic

(48,225 posts)

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

Reply to Zorro (Original post)

Sat Jan 11, 2025, 10:55 AM

Jan 11

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

7 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

1 in 10 Los Angeles homes don't have insurance, says one estimate [View all] Zorro Jan 11 OP

Cat coverage should be required to be offered, and pronto! bucolic_frolic Jan 11 #1

In parts of N.J., the problems are flooding and wild fires. 3Hotdogs Jan 11 #3

I'm not in Cali, but have considered MotownPgh Jan 11 #2

As long as your mortgage allows you not to have coverage you can do it. Jacson6 Jan 12 #7

I'm really surprised it's not higher, especially with homeowners who've recently lost coverage. LauraInLA Jan 11 #4

Its not higher because most people carry a mortgage drray23 Jan 11 #5

Homes with no loans Buddyzbuddy Jan 11 #6