



























Julia Kuhn.docx


 

 

 
 
Bellarmine Law Society Review 

 
Volume XV | Issue I       Article II 

 
 
 
The Impact of Climate Shocks on Homeowners' Insurance: A Legal, 
Economic, and Public Policy Analysis 

Julia Kuhn 
Boston College, julia.kuhn@bc.edu 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 



 

THE IMPACT OF CLIMATE SHOCKS ON HOMEOWNERS' INSURANCE: 
A LEGAL, ECONOMIC, AND PUBLIC POLICY ANALYSIS 

 

JULIA KUHN 1 

 

Abstract: In the past decade, climate shocks have ravaged the United States at 
unprecedented levels.  This paper addresses one of the first victims: homeowners.  
Given the increasing frequency and severity of these shocks, insurance companies 
have begun charging sky-high premiums, or in a rising number of cases, 
completely dropping policies in high-risk states.  Consequently, public policy has 
shifted, leaving homeowners in certain areas to choose between two options: 
insurers of last resort, such as California’s FAIR Plan, or non-admitted insurance.  
Adding to this problem are the economic implications, with several experts citing 
concerns that the cascading effects could prove to be worse than the 2007/2008 
financial crisis.  Further, there is the legal aspect, with legislation, regulation, and 
litigation all playing a role.  Finally, while a variety of solutions have been 
proposed to address this crisis, none have proven completely effective.  Thus, to 
prevent additional devastation, the paper offers two recommendations on how 
society should proceed. 

 

Introduction  

Today, severe climate shocks, including wildfires, hurricanes, and tornadoes, are ravaging 

the United States in unprecedented numbers, with states like California, Florida, and Louisiana 

bearing the brunt of the effects.  According to the National Oceanic & Atmospheric 

Administration, the United States now averages twenty-three weather and climate disasters that 

each exceed $1 billion in damages per year.58  In 2024 alone, there were twenty-seven such 

events, just one shy of the record-setting twenty-eight events that took place in 2023 (Exhibit 

1).58  Examples from 2024 include Hurricane Helene, which struck Florida, Georgia, South 

1 Julia Kuhn is a senior with dual concentrations in Finance and Accounting for Finance & Consulting.  She will be 
graduating magna cum laude in May and starting her career at Goldman Sachs as an Asset Management Equity 
Analyst.  The highlights of her extracurricular experiences at BC included Project Sunshine, where she volunteered 
at local hospitals to serve pediatric patients, as well as the American Red Cross, where she held two E-board 
positions and organized a trip to the Boston Food Pantry. Outside of academics and volunteering, her interests 
include cooking, cycling, and reading. 

27 



 

Carolina, North Carolina, and Tennessee, and caused approximately $79.6 billion in damages, as 

well as Hurricane Milton, which made landfall on Florida and resulted in an estimated $34.3 

billion in damages.52,58  Earlier this year, the Los Angeles Wildfires, which include the Palisades 

Fire and the Eaton Fire, devastated California.32  Damages are expected to cost between $28 

billion and $53.8 billion.32  This can all be compared to the 1980s, where the United States only 

averaged three climate disasters that exceeded $1 billion throughout the entire decade.58 

The Problem 

Indeed, one of the most notable effects of these climate shocks can be seen in the market 

for homeowners' insurance.  As of the end of 2024, insured losses from climate-related disasters 

in the United States hit $112.7 billion, representing an increase of 36% from the year prior.21  

Consequently, in disaster-prone areas of the country, specifically coastal states and/or states at 

high risk of wildfires, traditional insurers have significantly raised premiums or dropped (i.e., not 

renewed) policies.63  In Florida, between 2020 and 2023, average premiums in the state increased 

by 40% (adjusted for inflation) to $3,300.12. During a similar time frame (2018 to 2023), 

Florida’s non-renewal rate increased by 280%.63  This is not coincidental;  according to a report 

published by the Senate Budget Committee in December 2024, there is a positive correlation 

between premiums and non-renewal rates (Exhibit 2).63  In other words, areas with higher 

premiums are more likely to experience higher non-renewal rates.63  

It’s important to note, however, that such non-renewal rate increases are not limited to 

Florida.  As highlighted in Exhibits 3 and 4, between 2018 and 2023, non-renewal rates 

skyrocketed in states such as Louisiana, Hawaii, South Carolina, and Oklahoma.63  These states, 

perhaps not surprisingly, have higher climate risk, another factor that correlates with higher 

non-renewal rates.62  Zooming in on the county level, over 200 saw their non-renewal rate triple 

28 



 

or more between 2018 and 2023, with some experiencing increases larger than 500% (Exhibit 

5).25,63 To highlight specific examples of non-renewals, one can examine the insurance market in 

California and Louisiana.  In 2024, less than one year after State Farm, California’s largest 

property insurer, stopped accepting new applications for homeowners insurance in the state, the 

company ceased to renew 30,000 policies.8,53  Nationwide, Trans Pacific, and The Hartford, 

among others, followed suit. 17  Regarding Louisiana, between 2021 and 2023, at least twenty 

insurance companies exited the state’s market.63 

All of this taken together highlights a harsh reality: as a result of climate shocks, the 

market for homeowners' insurance in high-risk areas is breaking down, leaving many in the dust.   

Unfortunately, however, the effects do not stop here.  Instead, they extend more broadly to public 

policy, the economy, and the legal industry. 

History of Homeowners Insurance 

 Before diving into the effects of premium increases and higher non-renewal rates on 

public policy, the economy, and the legal industry, it is important to understand the background 

behind homeowners insurance, including when and why it was created, how it is regulated, and 

how it has evolved.   

Creation 

The first homeowners insurance policy was introduced in September of 1950 by the 

Insurance Company of North America in response to the post-WWII housing boom.16,31  This 

policy, unlike previous ones, offered a package that covered homes against losses caused by fire, 

smoke, lightning, wind, hail, explosions, theft, and vandalism.31  Such a policy was widely 

celebrated among homeowners, as it provided comprehensive coverage and “cost 20% less than 

the combined premiums on separate policies that [they] had to buy for similar coverage.”16,31 

29 



 

Regulation 

Notably, homeowners' insurance is regulated by the states, not the federal government.24  

In fact, even small actions by the Treasury Department, such as attempts to gather data on the 

market, have received pushback from state regulators.24  Given this structure, the responsibility 

of approving or rejecting rate increases ultimately lies with the states.24   

Present Day 

 Today, homeowners' insurance policies provide much of the same coverage as the first 

one did back in 1950.  One main difference, however, is the types of policies offered.  Currently, 

there are five to choose from (excluding renters insurance, condo insurance, and mobile home 

insurance), all with differing amounts of coverage (Exhibit 6).42  The HO-1 policy offers the least 

amount of coverage and has limited availability in most states, as mortgages often require higher 

levels of protection.42  Next is the HO-2 policy, which builds on HO-1.42  Nevertheless, it is the 

HO-3 policy that is most common.42  This policy provides coverage for a house and personal 

belongings, in addition to liability, medical payments to others, and supplemental living 

expenses.42  Additionally, there is the HO-5 policy, which offers the highest level of protection.42  

In contrast to the HO-3 policy, HO-5 pays out replacement cost value (as opposed to actual cash 

value).42  Replacement cost value involves replacing damaged items with new and similar 

versions, while actual cash value involves receiving the depreciated cash value of damaged 

items.42  Also, unlike the HO-3 policy, HO-5 covers personal belongings if they are damaged, 

stolen, lost, or misplaced (as opposed to just damaged or stolen).42  Finally, the HO-8 policy 

applies to historic homes and registered landmarks.42  While it offers less protection than the 

HO-3 and HO-5 policies, coverage for personal belongings, liability, medical payments to others, 

and supplemental living expenses is still included.42   

30 



 

Public Policy Analysis 

Given the rapid rise of both premiums and non-renewal rates, homeowners in 

disaster-prone areas have flocked, in record numbers, to insurers of last resort and lightly 

regulated (i.e., non-admitted) home insurance.  Both options present their own issues.  

Insurers of Last Resort 

 Insurers of last resort, such as California’s FAIR Plan and Florida’s Citizens Property 

Insurance Corporation, have become an increasingly popular option among homeowners because 

of their ability to provide coverage in high-risk areas when traditional insurance companies will 

not.7,46  Unlike private insurance, they are backed by their respective states and meant to function 

as a temporary safety net until private insurance coverage becomes available.1  Despite their 

temporary nature, homeowners have not been deterred from both enrolling and remaining 

enrolled in these policies, as such plans are often the only option. In fact, between 2018 and 

2023, insurers of last resort plans more than doubled their market share, with Florida’s Citizen 

Plan making its way onto the top ten list of largest homeowner insurers in 2023.27,35 

To further analyze the market for insurers of last resort, one can turn to California’s FAIR 

Plan.  Established by statute in 1968, the FAIR Plan provides “basic fire insurance coverage to 

high-risk properties that traditional insurance carriers refuse to cover.”1,39  The FAIR Plan is 

structured as a “pool” of all licensed property insurers in California, each of which contributes to 

its profits, losses, and expenses in a manner proportional to their market share in the state.1  The 

Plan is not a state agency or a public entity, meaning it does not receive public or taxpayer 

funding.1  In regard to its current exposure, the statistics are eye-opening.  As of March 2025, 

“the FAIR Plan’s total exposure is $599 billion, reflecting a 31% increase since September 2024 

and a 259% increase since September 2021” (Exhibit 7).36   The FAIR Plan’s high monetary 

31 



 

exposure highlights the first problem associated with insurers of last resort: they are incredibly 

risky.  In fact, according to a Bloomberg report, “out of 36 [insurers of last resort] that offer 

coverage for natural catastrophes, 21 don’t explicitly detail how they’d pay deficits.”35  This lack 

of transparency calls into question whether insurers of last resort can remain solvent in the face 

of additional climate shocks.   

 It would be remiss not to consider two additional problems with insurers of last resort, 

that is, their high premiums and basic coverage.47  To illustrate this issue, one can look no further 

than Colorado’s FAIR Plan, which officially launched in April of 2025 and provides basic 

property insurance.18,50  The Plan pays out actual cash value and does not cover liability, content 

replacement, or additional living expenses in the event a resident is displaced.18,50  Its website 

reads, “FAIR Plan policies come with substantially higher premiums and offer more limited 

coverage…The Colorado FAIR Plan is the most expensive way to insure a property…standard 

insurance remains the most cost-effective option for property insurance in nearly all cases.”14  As 

discussed above, however, the “most cost-effective option” remains unavailable for many 

homeowners.  As a result, they are left with higher premiums and insufficient coverage. 

Non-Admitted Homeowners Insurance  

 After accounting for insurers of last resort, there remains one other option for residents in 

high-risk areas: non-admitted homeowners insurance, also known as lightly regulated insurance.3  

While originally designed to provide coverage for “properties that face unique and relatively rare 

risks” in the commercial real estate industry, such as a fireworks factory or a nuclear waste 

project, lightly regulated home insurance has expanded its reach.3  For instance, the “number of 

non-admitted homeowners policies in Florida grew 73%, to more than 92,000, in the 14-year 

period that ended in 2023.”3  In some counties, however, the number of policies grew upwards of 

32 



 

250%, with Okeechobee County experiencing the highest increase at 1,009% (Exhibit 8).3  Over 

the same period, California saw transactions in its non-admitted market increase by nearly 

200%.3  By and large, this indicates that “regular homes in some parts of the country are now 

viewed by the insurance industry as the equivalent of a fireworks factory.”3 

 As with insurers of last resort, lightly regulated home insurance has a host of issues, the 

main one being its extremely high risk.  First, non-admitted insurance is not regulated by the 

states and, thus, not subject to the same quality monitoring and contract review as traditional 

insurance or insurers of last resort.3  This gives them “more flexibility to raise prices and tailor 

coverage.”3  Indeed, this flexibility, if it hasn’t already, will lead them to take advantage of 

policyholders.  If such flexibility is left unchecked, it will only grow larger, causing these 

companies to inflict even greater harm on those that they were meant to help. 

Next, perhaps the largest weakness for the non-admitted insurance market, and what 

distinguishes it from all other options, is its lack of a guaranty fund.3  This means that if a 

non-admitted insurance company were to go bankrupt, policyholders would never have their 

claims paid, ultimately leaving them “on their own to replace everything.”3  Such a possibility 

becomes even more scary when considering the financial vulnerability of non-admitted insurance 

companies, which can be analyzed using a metric known as the risk-based capital ratio.3  This 

ratio, which is used by regulators to evaluate an insurer’s financial health, “demonstrates whether 

a company has enough money to meet potential financial obligations, like claims after a big 

storm.”3 A low ratio, which is common among non-admitted insurers, indicates that “the 

company might not have enough capital on hand considering the risk they’ve absorbed.”3  Kin, 

Topa, and Orion180, three non-admitted insurers that were part of an analysis conducted by 

33 



 

Bloomberg in 2023, had risk-based capital ratios of 3.3, 3.1, and 1.5, respectively.3  For 

reference, the median risk-based capital ratio of insurance companies in 2023 was 10.97.3 

 Moreover, a handful of companies that issue non-admitted policies have not obtained 

ratings from the insurance industry’s largest and most respected rating agency, AM Best.3  

Instead, these companies rely on ratings from Demotech, an agency whose ratings “are viewed 

much more skeptically by brokers and insurance experts because they rarely hand out anything 

other than an A.”3  An A, according to Demotech’s website, indicates that the insurer has 

“exceptional financial stability.”22  As explained above, however, this is not often the case.  For 

example, Kin and Orion180, two non-admitted insurers discussed previously, received an A from 

Demotech.3  This came despite their low risk-based capital ratio of 3.3 and 1.5, respectively.  

Last but not least is a statistic that pertains to Florida. In 2021 and 2022, “seven companies that 

had A ratings from Demotech went insolvent,” a fact which further decreases the rating agency’s 

credibility.3 

Economic Analysis  

 Further complicating this matter are its economic implications.  According to the Senate 

Budget Committee report from December 2024, many experts are comparing the “climate-driven 

insurance crisis” to the 2007/2008 financial crisis, even citing concerns that it may be worse.63  

This is primarily due to its potential effects on the real estate market, household wealth, tax 

revenues, and ultimately, communities.  Add this to its current effects on insurance companies. 

 As previously discussed, the upsurge in climate shocks has led many insurers to drop 

homeowner policies.  Without homeowners insurance, however, one cannot obtain a mortgage, 

ordinarily a prerequisite for purchasing and retaining a home.46  As a result, there will likely be 

fewer home buyers in the market, causing property values to fall.46  In fact, one estimate puts the 

34 



 

“potential reduction in unadjusted real estate values over the next 30 years due to climate-related 

risks” at $1.47 trillion.19  The resulting ripple effects could be catastrophic. 

 According to Sean Becketti, the former Chief Economist of Freddie Mac, “A large share 

of homeowners’ wealth is locked up in the equity in their homes.”5  Thus, “if homes become 

uninsurable and unmarketable, [their values] will plummet,” as will household wealth.5  Becketti 

previously warned that, “the economic losses and social disruption may happen gradually, but 

they are likely to be greater in total than those experienced in the [2007/2008 financial crisis].”63  

This is because the current outlook makes an asset value recovery similar to that experienced 

post-2008 quite unlikely, as a “home too endangered to insure will only become more 

endangered,” causing its value to fall even further.63 

 Indeed, falling property values can also result in smaller property tax revenues.25  This 

leaves towns with less money to fund critical resources such as schools, libraries, police and fire 

departments, and road construction and repairs.34  Thus, it is only a matter of time before 

communities begin to feel strained. 

 Lastly comes the effects on insurance companies.  While dropping homeowners 

insurance coverage in areas susceptible to climate shocks may seem grossly unfair and wrong to 

some, others argue it is necessary if private insurers want to remain solvent.  The impending 

solvency crisis can be illustrated using State Farm as an example.  In February 2025 alone, State 

Farm had to pay out approximately $1.75 billion to claims related to the Los Angeles wildfires.47  

This came after the company’s 2023 warning to California officials that they were struggling 

financially, evidenced by their rating downgrade the same year.47  As a result of the wildfires, 

State Farm estimates its direct losses to be $7.6 billion, $612 million of which will be retained 

(after accounting for reinsurance and FAIR Plan contribution).62  The company’s surplus, “which 

35 



 

stood at $1.04 billion at the end of 2024,” is forecasted to decrease by $400 million.62  Looking 

back on the past decade, its surplus has declined by roughly $5 billion.47  Needless to say, this 

surplus, given the current outlook, will not last much longer.  Consequently, State Farm, in 

addition to many other insurance companies, is going to be scrambling for funds, with some 

likely falling into bankruptcy. 

Legal Analysis 

 Adding even more complexity to this issue is the legal perspective, including legislation, 

regulation, and litigation. 

Legislation 

 The effects of legislation on the insurance industry are significant. Continuing with 

California as a case for analysis highlights this point. In 1988, California voters passed 

Proposition 103, also known as the Insurance Rate Reduction and Reform Act.41  Its purpose was 

to “protect consumers from arbitrary insurance rates and practices, to encourage a competitive 

marketplace, and to ensure that insurance is fair, available, and affordable for all Californians.”51   

Although supporters of Proposition 103 call attention to the estimated $150 billion in 

premiums it has saved Californians over the last 25 years, opponents emphasize the myriad of 

problems it has created, the first one being the mass exodus of insurers from California’s 

market.35  Opponents argue that this exodus is due to the limitations that Proposition 103 places 

on insurers’ ability to price their homeowners insurance policies in a way that “appropriately 

[accounts] for the risks [they] are protecting against.”35  The data speaks for itself: An analysis 

conducted by the California governor’s office in 2024 found that “the average policy for a 

$300,000 home in California cost $1,405 a year, compared with $3,851 in Texas and $4,419 in 

Florida” (two states that also face high climate-related risks).57  It also sits below the national 

36 



 

average of $2,601.29  Further, when considering the massive losses experienced by insurers, due 

in large part to the restrictions imposed by Proposition 103, the reason for their exodus becomes 

even more clear: “In 2017 and 2018 alone, California homeowners insurers posted a combined 

underwriting loss of $20 billion, more than double the total combined underwriting profit of $10 

billion that the state’s homeowners insurers had generated from 1991 to 2016.”41 

Undoubtedly, the limits imposed by Proposition 103 also send the wrong signal to both 

homebuyers and contractors. As a spokesperson for the American Property Casualty Insurance 

Corporation put it, “Years of restrictions on rate-making created an artificially suppressed market 

that incentivized continued population growth in areas at high risk for wildfire and then reduced 

consumer options for insurance.”57  Certainly, without a mechanism to change its course of 

direction, the market will maintain its troublesome path and continue to mislead its constituents 

along the way.   

 Finally, opponents of Proposition 103 cite the problems associated with its 

“rate-intervenor system.”41  Put simply, this system kicks in for public hearings, which 

Proposition 103 makes mandatory when insurance companies propose a rate hike of more than 

6.9%.41  Ultimately, it allows public intervenors to “file objections on behalf of consumers, with 

fees to be paid by the applicant insurance company.”41  As evidenced by the data, the results of 

this system are far from efficient.41  Aside from the fact that insurance companies pass on public 

intervenor fees to policyholders, the intervenor process has a “five-year average filing delay of 

236 days for homeowners insurance.”41 Thus, insurers must endure inadequate pricing structures 

for at least six months, causing losses to grow and making an exit from the state’s market all the 

more favorable. 

Regulation 

37 



 

 As previously mentioned, traditional homeowners insurance is regulated by a state’s 

insurance commissioner, a figure whose decisions carry lots of weight for policyholders and 

insurance companies alike.  Given the ongoing media coverage of California’s insurance market, 

this state will remain the subject of analysis.   

 Starting with last year (2024), the California Department of Insurance approved Allstate’s 

request to raise its average home insurance premiums by 34%, a change that affected 

approximately 350,000 policyholders.38,48  Currently, State Farm is awaiting approval on its 

emergency request to raise premiums by 17%, a move they argue is required for them to stay 

afloat in the wake of the Los Angeles wildfires.53  Indeed, state officials seem supportive of this 

move, as remarks from Nikki Kennedy, an attorney for the California Department of Insurance, 

highlight.53  In a recent hearing, Kennedy ardently advocated for State Farm, warning the judge 

presiding over the case that “[California is] on the Titanic, and [sees] the iceberg. Now is not the 

time to argue about where to put the deck chairs. There is still time, your honor, to turn this ship 

around. If we don't, over three million Californians are going in the water. And there are not 

enough lifeboats."53  While rate hikes do not bode well for the finances of policyholders, they are 

necessary to keep insurers solvent, as State Farm’s case demonstrates.   

It must be noted, however, that state regulators must consider the interests of 

policyholders as well.  Raising rates to exorbitant levels, while beneficial for insurance 

companies, has an adverse impact on policyholders. With this in mind, it is important to gather 

context on State Farm’s current proposed rate increase of 17%.  In June 2023, State Farm 

requested a premium rate hike of 30% for its home insurance policies in California.53  

Nonetheless, after the Los Angeles wildfires, an event that certainly made the company’s 

financial situation worse, State Farm lowered its request to a 22% increase.53  Then, after state 

38 



 

regulators required the company to justify why such a rate increase was necessary, State Farm 

lowered its request to 17%.28,53  Surely, after taking context into account, it appears that state 

regulators are handling the opposing interests of insurance companies and policyholders in a 

responsible and equitable manner.   

Litigation 

Many California policyholders, however, do not support this view.  Instead, a vast 

majority see state regulators in a negative light, an issue that has led to a host of lawsuits.  For 

example, in February, California’s insurance commissioner, Ricardo Lara, “approved the FAIR 

Plan’s request to levy an assessment of $1 billion on all its member insurers” so they could 

continue paying insurance claims related to the Los Angeles wildfires.55  Yet, two months later, 

Consumer Watchdog (a nonprofit serving on behalf of the public’s interest) sued Ricardo Lara 

and the California Department of Insurance, alleging their approval of such a request violated the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the state’s insurance code.44  The suit alleges that the 

violation of the APA stems from the absence of public input on Lara’s decision.37  The violation 

of the state’s insurance code, Consumer Watchdog argues, stems from the decision by insurance 

companies to pass assessment costs onto policyholders.37  To support their argument, Consumer 

Watchdog points to the section of the California FAIR Plan that reads, “…all member insurers 

must participate in the [plan’s] expenses, profits, and losses…” in a manner proportional to their 

market share in the state.37,40   

By all means, policyholders have not limited their target to state regulators.  Rather, they 

have also begun to go after insurers themselves.  For instance, last month (April 2025), 

California homeowners affected by the Los Angeles wildfires accused over 300 insurance 

companies, including State Farm, Travelers, and Liberty Mutual, of violating the antitrust 

39 



 

provisions of California’s Cartwright Act and Unfair Competition Law.49  Regarding evidence, 

property owners point to how insurers “[conspired] to eliminate competition in the marketplace” 

by “restricting business in certain areas of the state.”49  This conspiracy, the plaintiffs argue, 

allowed insurers to reduce their risk of losses and “forced [homeowners] to obtain more 

expensive policies with less coverage through the California [FAIR] Plan.”49 As a remedy, 

homeowners are seeking “compensatory and treble damages, as well as an injunction preventing 

the insurers from engaging in anticompetitive behavior.”49 

All in all, while the above examples are constrained to California, they beg the question 

of how this type of litigation will extend to other states. After all, it is not just California 

experiencing a homeowners insurance crisis from climate shocks (as previously noted).  Thus, it 

is not a matter of if, but when, litigation in other parts of the country will start to pop up.     

Potential Solutions & Their Shortfalls 

 To address the homeowners' insurance crisis as it relates to climate shocks, several states 

have tried their hand at different solutions. 

First, one of the solutions, which has since been adopted by Louisiana, is to subsidize 

private insurance companies.26  Although this keeps insurers from ceasing their operations in 

high-risk areas, it has a perverse effect on the real estate market.  This is because such subsidies 

“dampen the price signal that potential homebuyers should receive about the true costs of living 

in harm’s way.”27  Thus, without knowing the real price of their investment, people will continue 

to settle in the most susceptible parts of the country, an aspect that constitutes one of this issue’s 

most pressing problems. 

Another potential solution concerns insurance companies offering premium discounts or 

states offering tax breaks to homeowners who implement protection measures.15  These measures 

40 



 

could include, but are not limited to, fire-resistant siding, sprinkler systems, wind-resistant 

roofing, and hail-resistant shingles.15,27  One example of this solution in action can be seen in 

Florida.  Here, some private insurance companies “are offering discounts to policyholders that 

fortify their homes against hurricane-force winds by strengthening and securing roofs and 

shutters and reinforcing garage doors.”15  In terms of tax breaks, the state offers “sales tax 

exemptions for impact-resistant windows, doors, and garage doors.”15  As for California, the 

state provides tax credits to “homeowners who make their homes more resistant to fires, wind, 

rain, and hail.”15   

Undoubtedly, this solution appears to be a win-win: Policyholders get discounts and tax 

breaks for making their homes more resilient, and insurers reduce their risk of losses.  This, 

however, does not capture the full picture.  Importantly, one must consider the expenses 

associated with such measures. These expenses “may place additional financial burdens on 

policyholders over and above increasing insurance costs.”55  Therefore, this solution could turn 

out to be a net negative for homeowners. Adding to this downside is the possibility that a 

policyholder could receive no benefits in return for protecting their home. For example, take 

Richard Zimmel, a homeowner in Silver City, New Mexico (an area at risk of wildfires).25  

Despite taking measures to curb his home’s forest fire risk, including trimming trees away from 

his house, covering his yard in gravel to stop flames from rushing onto his property, sheathing 

his house in fire-resistant stucco, and renovating his roof with noncombustible steel, Zimmel’s 

insurance company, Homesite, dropped coverage of his property in December of 2024.25  As a 

result, Zimmel was forced to join the many others across the country searching for homeowners 

insurance. 

41 



 

A third solution might entail federal government intervention akin to that which took 

place in the 1960s.  In 1968, Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) 

with the goal of addressing the lack of flood insurance availability in vulnerable areas.46  This 

issue arose following the 1927 Mississippi flood, an event that resulted in major insurance 

companies withdrawing coverage from areas “exposed to frequent and correlated flood risk.”46  

Not long after its creation, the NFIP became “the nation’s primary, and effectively only, provider 

of residential flood insurance.”46   

Although the NFIP fills the coverage void for homeowners in flood-prone areas, it has 

various flaws.  First, critics cite the NFIP’s role in creating moral hazard.46  In this case, moral 

hazard “refers to the risks that someone becomes more inclined to take because they have reason 

to believe that an insurer will cover the costs of any damages.”46  Put differently, the NFIP 

improperly incentivizes “development and growth in flood-exposed areas” by protecting in the 

event of serious water damage.46  Further, critics highlight the NFIP’s financial instability, which 

can be attributed to its pricing structure.46  In particular, NFIP’s policies charge substantially 

lower rates than they should, given their risk exposure.46   Its pricing model even depends on 

periodic infusions of congressional funding to remain operational.46   Surely, when these flaws 

are taken into account, proposals by lawmakers to create an analogous program for homeowners' 

insurance appear unsuitable.35   

An additional solution, one which is controlled by the states, involves updating building 

codes.27  For example, California has adopted wildfire codes while Florida has implemented 

hurricane wind codes.27  Specifically, California’s wildfire codes require new homes constructed 

within a “State Responsibility Area” to be built with fire-resistant materials, such as specific 

roofing, windows, and eaves.23  As for Florida, its building codes specify four wind zones 

42 



 

(categorized by speed).10  The wind zone surrounding a new home determines how it must be 

designed.10  While updated building codes reduce the risk of damage, it is important to note that 

they are only effective when it comes to new construction.  Indeed, if society would like to put 

an end to the homeowners' insurance crisis, new construction in high-risk areas is not the answer. 

 The final solution to address is catastrophe bonds, a market that has grown to a record 

$50 billion (as of December 2024).45  A catastrophe bond, or cat bond, is defined as a “high-yield 

debt instrument designed to raise money for insurance companies in the event of a natural 

disaster.”30  Ultimately, cat bonds allow insurers to share the risk of catastrophic weather events, 

such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and floods, with investors.30  If a disaster occurs, insurance 

companies tap into the collateral to help pay out their claims.30  On the flip side, investors suffer 

heavy losses.45  If a disaster does not occur, however, investors can earn double-digit returns.45  It 

is this possibility, combined with the portfolio diversification benefits, that attracts investors to 

catastrophe bonds.30   

 It should be noted that these bonds do not come without risks, most of which fall upon 

investors.  For example, if a predefined disaster occurs before a catastrophe bond matures, 

investors can lose their principal, and coupon payments could be reduced or ceased.30,59  Given 

the increasing frequency of climate shocks (as discussed previously), as well as the growing 

market for catastrophe bonds, this result is likely to become increasingly common, causing 

investor losses to multiply.  

Conclusion & Recommendations 

 In light of this information, it is imperative to propose recommendations on how society 

should move forward. 

Education 

43 



 

 One of the first steps in addressing this issue is to educate homeowners on climate-related 

risks associated with their dwellings.15  This education can be provided by insurance companies 

and/or state regulators, and may include scientific data that outlines the growing dangers posed 

by past and future disasters. It may also include ways to mitigate or eliminate a home’s 

vulnerabilities.15  In terms of gathering education material, state regulators and insurance 

companies can leverage artificial intelligence.  For example, Chubb Climate+, a business unit 

within Chubb Insurance that supports companies contributing to the transition to a low-carbon 

economy, “uses artificial intelligence and advanced data analytics to identify vulnerable 

households and the likely damage.”13,15  Certainly, conveying this information to both current and 

prospective homeowners can encourage them to act – or, in some cases, consider relocating.   

 An additional benefit of education is the demand for it.  According to a 2024 Deloitte 

survey of homeowners in U.S. states at high risk of climate-related disasters, 84% of respondents 

said they want insurance companies to educate them on weather-related risks.15  Indeed, this 

shows that homeowners are receptive to education and unlikely to ignore warnings. 

 Alternatively, there are downsides to education.  For instance, education does not address 

the root cause of this issue, that is, the frequency and intensity of billion-dollar weather and 

climate disasters.  It has the potential, however, to better prepare homeowners for such disasters 

and influence their settlement decisions (as noted above).  

Renewable Energy 

 The second, more long-term oriented recommendation is to encourage investments in 

renewable energy, such as solar, wind, geothermal, and hydropower, and ‘nudge’ society toward 

reducing its use of fossil fuels.60,64  This is because fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, 

44 



 

contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.9  Research has shown that these emissions have 

“increased the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events.”20   

The strengths of this recommendation are threefold.  First, according to a recent report 

from the International Renewable Energy Agency, 81% of renewables offer cheaper energy than 

fossil fuels, meaning companies have the potential to experience significant cost savings 43  

Regarding homeowners, they too can save money.  For example, the Residential Clean Energy 

Credit offers to reimburse 30% of the costs associated with clean energy improvements to new or 

existing homes, such as solar panels and solar water heaters.56  Second, investments in renewable 

energy are coming off a blockbuster year.  For example, “wind and solar generation [reached] a 

record 17% of U.S. electricity generation” in 2024 and surpassed coal generation for the first 

time in history.2  More recently, March 2025 marked an unprecedented month, as “fossil fuels 

supplied less than half the United States’ electricity generation.”54  Without a doubt, this suggests 

that there are numerous investment opportunities involving renewable energy.  As a result, 

companies and individuals do not have to spend time searching for options and risk investing 

money in an industry that is not yet established.  Third, and possibly the most important, is that 

investing in renewable energy targets the root cause of this issue (the frequency and intensity of 

weather and climate disasters) and looks to prevent it from growing even further.   

This recommendation, as with most, also has some weaknesses.  First, the current 

administration has endorsed the use of fossil fuels and indicated a desire to step back from 

renewable energy.6  For example, in January of 2025, an executive order was issued calling for a 

temporary withdrawal of new wind projects in federal territory.61  Also in January of 2025, 

funding for the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (the IRA) was frozen.2  One of the IRA’s goals is to 

“accelerate the deployment of clean energy” using tax incentives, among other things.33  These 

45 



 

tax incentives, which have since been paused, apply to the production and purchase of domestic 

clean energy technology.2  In addition, the newly proposed – but recently delayed – tariffs could 

pose a headwind for the industry.2  This is because “the United States has become increasingly 

reliant on imported components for key clean energy technologies like solar panels, wind 

turbines, and batteries.”2  As a result, the deployment of renewable energy could become 

significantly more expensive.2  

 All that said, there are still signs that this recommendation has merit. These orders are 

temporary.  This means that as time passes, the administration’s investigation into such matters, 

which is likely to include discussions with industry experts, may cause them to recognize the 

effects of certain actions.  Consequently, they may alter their course.  Finally, the current political 

environment can overshadow the optimism that remains for the future.  As Hortense Bioy, global 

head of sustainability research at Morningstar, put it, “Despite the short-term uncertainty in the 

US, the long-term drivers for clean energy remain intact and the outlook for the sector remains 

positive. History has shown that the energy transition will continue regardless of [the 

administration].”4 

 To conclude, climate shocks have made a lasting mark on the homeowners' insurance 

industry.  From increasing premiums and non-renewal rates to the rising number of non-admitted 

and insurer of last resort policies, the consequences have been serious.  Expanding on these 

consequences reveals their economic and legal implications, both of which suggest a grim 

outlook for the future of the United States.  This outlook, however, can be improved by 

educating the public on climate-related risks and committing to renewable energy.  Otherwise, it 

is only a matter of time before the entirety of America begins to feel the effects. 

 

46 



 

Appendix 

Exhibit 1 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Source: NOAA 

Exhibit 2 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Senate Budget Committee 

47 



 

Exhibit 3 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Senate Budget Committee 

Exhibit 4 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

Source: Senate Budget Committee 

48 



 

Exhibit 5 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Senate Budget Committee 

Exhibit 6 

Types of Homeowners Insurance 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

*ACV: actual cash value 
 

Source: Forbes 
 

 

49 



 

Exhibit 7 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: California FAIR Plan 

 

Exhibit 8 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Bloomberg 

 

50 



 

Bibliography 

1 “About.” The California FAIR Plan, n.d. http://www.cfpnet.com/about-fair-plan/.  

2 Abrahams, Leslie. “The Impacts of Tariffs on Clean Energy Technologies.” Center for Strategic 

and International Studies, April 10, 2025. 

http://www.csis.org/analysis/impacts-tariffs-clean-energy-technologies.  

3 Alexander, Sophie, and Leslie Kaufman. “The Quiet Rise of Lightly Regulated Home 

Insurance.” Bloomberg, December 3, 2024. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2024-home-insurance-risky-policy/?srnd=homepag

e-europe.  

4 Baselli, Valerio. “Can Renewable Energy Stocks Prosper During Trump’s Second Term?” 

Morningstar, April 15, 2025. 

https://www.morningstar.com/sustainable-investing/can-renewable-energy-stocks-prosper

-during-trumps-second-term.  

5 Becketti, Sean. Rising Seas, Rising Costs: Climate Change and the Economic Risks to Coastal 

Communities, 118th Cong. (2023). 

https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Dr.%20Sean%20Becketti%20-%20Testim

ony%20-%20Senate%20Budget%20Committee.pdf. 

6 Brady, Jeff. “As Trump Vows to Embrace Fossil Fuels, U.S. Climate Policy Won’t Change 

Quickly.” NPR, February 1, 2025. 

http://www.npr.org/2025/02/01/nx-s1-5273496/trump-biden-climate-change-energy-fossil

-fuels-paris-agreement.  

7 “Bridging Insurance Gaps to Prepare Homeowners for Emerging Climate Change Risks.” 

Deloitte, May 2, 2024. 

51 



 

https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/financial-services/bridging-the-gap-bet

ween-homeowners-insurance-companies-climate-change.html.  

8 The California FAIR Plan, n.d. http://www.cfpnet.com/.  

9 “California New Business Update.” State Farm General Insurance Company, May 26, 2023. 

https://newsroom.statefarm.com/state-farm-general-insurance-company-california-new-b

usiness-update/.  

10 “Causes and Effects of Climate Change.” United Nations, n.d. 

http://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/causes-effects-climate-change.  

11 “Chapter 16: Structural Design.” In Florida Building Code, Building, 7th ed., 2020. 

https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/FLBC2020P1/chapter-16-structural-design.  

12 Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, n.d. http://www.citizensfla.com/.  

13 “Climate Change, Disaster Risk, and Homeowners’ Insurance.” Congressional Budget Office, 

n.d. http://www.cbo.gov/publication/60674.  

14 “Climate Progress Needs Protecting.” Chubb, n.d. 

https://about.chubb.com/citizenship/climate.html.  

15 “Colorado’s Last Resort Coverage Plan.” Colorado FAIR Plan, n.d. 

http://www.coloradofairplan.com/.  

16 Delaney, Bill. “First Home Owner’s Insurance Policies Are Offered.” EBSCO, 2023. 

http://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/first-home-owners-insurance-policies-are

-offered#:~:text=First%20Home%20Owner’s%20Insurance%20Policies%20emerged%2

0as%20a%20significant%20innovation,growth%20during%20the%20postwar%20era.  

17 Dumas, Breck. “California Insurance Crisis: List of Carriers That Have Fled or Reduced 

Coverage in the State.” FOX 26 Houston, January 13, 2025. 

52 



 

http://www.fox26houston.com/news/california-insurance-crisis-list-carriers-have-fled-red

uced-coverage-state.  

18 “Eligibility.” Colorado FAIR Plan, n.d. 

http://www.coloradofairplan.com/eligibility#:~:text=The%20FAIR%20Plan%20provides

%20only,(ACV)%20of%20the%20property.  

19 “Executive Summary: Property Prices in Peril.” First Street, February 3, 2025. 

https://firststreet.org/research-library/property-prices-in-peril.  

20 “Extreme Weather and Climate Change.” NASA, n.d. 

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/extreme-weather/.  

21 Fellowes-Granda, Lilith. “Managing the Climate Change-Fueled Property Insurance Crisis.” 

Center for American Progress, April 2, 2025. 

http://www.americanprogress.org/article/managing-the-climate-change-fueled-property-i

nsurance-crisis/#:~:text=Climate%20change%20is%20upending%20historical,increase%

20over%20the%20prior%20year.  

22 “Financial Stability Ratings Definitions.” Demotech, n.d. 

http://www.demotech.com/financial-stability-ratings/definitions/.  

23 “Fire Safety Laws.” California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection, n.d. 

https://readyforwildfire.org/fire-safety-laws/.  

24 Flavelle, Christopher, and Mira Rojanasakul. “As Insurers Around the U.S. Bleed Cash From 

Climate Shocks, Homeowners Lose.” The New York Times, May 13, 2024. 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/05/13/climate/insurance-homes-climate-change

-weather.html.  

53 



 

25 Flavelle, Christopher, and Mira Rojanasakul. “Insurers Are Deserting Homeowners as Climate 

Shocks Worsen.” The New York Times, December 18, 2024. 

www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/12/18/climate/insurance-non-renewal-climate-crisis.h

tml.  

26 Flavelle, Christopher, et al. “Climate Shocks Are Making Parts of America Uninsurable. It Just 

Got Worse.” The New York Times, May 31, 2023. 

www.nytimes.com/2023/05/31/climate/climate-change-insurance-wildfires-california.htm

l.  

27 Fowlie, Meredith, et al. “How Is Climate Change Impacting Home Insurance Markets?” 

Brookings, January 14, 2025. 

www.brookings.edu/articles/how-is-climate-change-impacting-home-insurance-markets/.  

28 Goard, Alyssa. “State Farm’s CA Rate Increase Gets Provisional Approval, Pending Public 

Hearing.” NBC Bay Area, March 14, 2025. 

www.nbcbayarea.com/news/california/state-farms-rate-increase-gets-provisional-approva

l/3819660/.  

29 “Governor Newsom Supports Insurance Reform Proposal.” Governor of California, June 12, 

2024. 

www.gov.ca.gov/2024/06/12/governor-newsom-supports-insurance-reform-proposal/.  

30 Hayes, Adam. “Catastrophe Bond (CAT) Meaning, Benefits, Risk, Example.” Investopedia, 

n.d. www.investopedia.com/terms/c/catastrophebond.asp.  

31 “Homeowners Insurance.” Library of Congress, n.d. 

guides.loc.gov/this-month-in-business-history/september/homeowners-insurance#note3.  

54 



 

32 Horton, Matt, et al. “Impact of 2025 Los Angeles Wildfires and Comparative Study.” Los 

Angeles County Economic Development Corporation, February 2025. 

laedc.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/LAEDC-2025-LA-Wildfires-Study.pdf.  

33 “Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 .” International Energy Agency, n.d. 

www.iea.org/policies/16156-inflation-reduction-act-of-2022.  

34 Kagan, Julia. “Property Tax: Definition, What It’s Used for, and How It’s Calculated.” 

Investopedia, n.d. www.investopedia.com/terms/p/propertytax.asp.  

35 Kaufman, Leslie, et al. “A Hidden Crisis in US Housing.” Bloomberg, March 5, 2024. 

www.bloomberg.com/features/2024-home-insurance-real-estate-crisis/?sref=fRZXrT1O.  

36 “Key Statistics & Data.” The California FAIR Plan, n.d. www.cfpnet.com/key-statistics-data/.  

37 Kim, Gina. “Massive Calif. Fire Assessment Pass-Through Sparks Suit.” Law360, April 15, 

2025. 

www.law360.com/articles/2325774/massive-calif-fire-assessment-pass-through-sparks-su

it.  

38 Koller, Steve. “The Insurance Crisis Continues To Weigh On Homeowners.” Joint Center for 

Housing Studies of Harvard University, December 9, 2024. 

www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/insurance-crisis-continues-weigh-homeowners.  

39 Konnath, Hailey. “Calif.’s Insurance Safety Net Gets $1B Infusion For Fire Claims.” Law360, 

February 11, 2025. 

www.law360.com/articles/2296858/calif-s-insurance-safety-net-gets-1b-infusion-for-fire-

claims.  

40 Lara, Ricardo. “Order No. 2025-1: Approving the California Fair Plan Association’s Request to 

Issue Assessment.” California Department of Insurance, February 11, 2025. 

55 



 

www.insurance.ca.gov/0250-insurers/0500-legal-info/0700-commissioners-orders/upload

/Order-No-2025-1-Approving-the-California-FAIR-Plan-Association-s-Request-to-Issue-

Assessment.pdf.  

41 Lehmann, R.J., and Ian Adams. “The Questionable Value of California’s Rate Intervenors.” 

International Center for Law & Economics, July 19, 2024. 

laweconcenter.org/resources/the-questionable-value-of-californias-rate-intervenors/.  

42 Masterson, Les. “8 Types of Homeowners Insurance Policies.” Forbes, October 9, 2023. 

www.forbes.com/advisor/homeowners-insurance/policy-types/.  

43 McMahon, Jeff. “81% Of Renewables Offer Cheaper Energy Than Fossil Fuels, Report Says.” 

Forbes, September 26, 2024. 

www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2024/09/26/81-of-new-renewables-produce-cheaper-

energy-than-fossil-fuels/.  

44 Mellino, Ryan. “Consumer Watchdog Sues to Stop Hundreds of Millions of Dollars in 

Unjustified Surcharges from Being Imposed on California Homeowners.” Consumer 

Watchdog, April 15, 2025. 

consumerwatchdog.org/in-the-courtroom/consumer-watchdog-sues-to-stop-hundreds-of-

millions-of-dollars-in-unjustified-surcharges-from-being-imposed-on-california-homeow

ners/.  

45 Naik, Guatam. “Cat-Bond Issuance Pushes Overall Market to Almost $50 Billion.” Bloomberg, 

December 23, 2024. 

www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-12-23/cat-bond-issuance-pushes-overall-market

-to-almost-50-billion.  

56 



 

46 Nevitt, Mark, and Michael Pappas. “Climate Risk, Insurance Retreat, and State Response.” 

Georgia Law Review 58, no. 4 (2024): 1603-1661. 

https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/glr/vol58/iss4/4. 

47 Nguyen, Tran. “California’s Insurer for People without Private Coverage Needs $1 Billion 

More for LA Fires Claims.” Associated Press, February 11, 2025. 

apnews.com/article/california-wildfires-insurance-fair-plan-dfb7cda506560ec50edee8ad7

2cbcda8.  

48 Palm, Iman. “Allstate Approved for 34.1% Rate Hike in California, Affecting over 350,000 

Policyholders.” KTLA News, August 29, 2024. 

ktla.com/news/california/allstate-approved-for-34-1-rate-hike-in-california-affecting-over

-350000-policyholders/.  

49 Patti, Hope. “Calif. Homeowners Say Insurers Colluded to Limit Coverage.” Law360, April 

21, 2025. 

www.law360.com/insurance/articles/2328104?nl_pk=5ee8aa6d-148a-4672-b4d2-03006a

9cb840&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=insurance&utm_

content=2025-04-22&read_main=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=2.  

50 Phillips, Noelle. “Colorado Launches New ‘Last Resort’ Homeowners Insurance Policy.” The 

Denver Post, April 10, 2025. 

www.denverpost.com/2025/04/10/colorado-fair-plan-homeowners-insurance/.  

51 “Prop 103 Consumer Intervenor Process.” California Department of Insurance, n.d. 

www.insurance.ca.gov/01-consumers/150-other-prog/01-intervenor/.  

52 Rafferty, John P. “Hurricane Helene.” Encyclopedia Britannica, March 19, 2025. 

www.britannica.com/event/Hurricane-Helene.  

57 



 

53 Ramos, John. “California Officials Seem Receptive to State Farm Insurance’s Emergency Rate 

Hike Request at Oakland Hearing.” CBS News, April 8, 2025. 

www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/california-insurance-officials-receptive-state-farm-

emergency-rate-hike/.  

54 Rapier, Robert. “U.S. Power Sector Milestone: Fossil Fuels Drop Below 50%.” Forbes, April 

29, 2025. 

www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2025/04/29/us-power-sector-milestone-fossil-fuels-drop-be

low-50/.  

55 Ratley, Justin, and Jon Burnovski. “How Calif.’s Wildfire Insurance Crisis Might Affect 

Texas.” Law360, March 20, 2025. 

www.law360.com/california/articles/2313111/how-calif-s-wildfire-insurance-crisis-might

-affect-texas.  

56 “Residential Clean Energy Credit.” Internal Revenue Service, n.d. 

www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/residential-clean-energy-credit.  

57 Riquier, Andrea. “Climate Change Is Worsening the Insurance Crisis. Some States Have 

Solutions.” USA Today, January 27, 2025. 

www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/real-estate/2025/01/27/homeowners-ins

urance-crisis-states/77775382007/.  

58 Smith, Adam B. “2024: An Active Year of U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate 

Disasters.” NOAA, January 10, 2025. 

www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/2024-active-year-us-billion-dollar-we

ather-and-climate-disasters.  

58 



 

59 Swedroe, Larry. “Catastrophe Bonds as Portfolio Diversifiers: Pros and Cons.” Morningstar, 

June 12, 2024. www.morningstar.com/bonds/catastrophe-bonds-strategic-diversifier.  

60 Thaler, Richard, and Cass Sunstein. Introduction to Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, 

Wealth, and Happiness, 1-13. Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2008. 

61 Trump, Donald J. Temporary Withdrawal of All Areas on the Outer Continental Shelf from 

Offshore Wind Leasing and Review of the Federal Government’s Leasing and Permitting 

Practices for Wind Projects. Washington, D.C.: The White House, January 20, 2025. 

www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/temporary-withdrawal-of-all-areas-on

-the-outer-continental-shelf-from-offshore-wind-leasing-and-review-of-the-federal-gover

nments-leasing-and-permitting-practices-for-wind-projects/.  

62 “Update on California.” State Farm General Insurance Company, March 14, 2025. 

newsroom.statefarm.com/state-farm-general-insurance-company-update-on-california-2-

2025/.  

63 U.S. Senate Committee on the Budget. Next to Fall: The Climate-Driven Insurance Crisis is 

Here – And Getting Worse. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Publishing Office, 

December 18, 2024. 

https://www.budget.senate.gov/hearings/next-to-fall-the-climate-driven-insurance-crisis-i

s-here_and-getting-worse. 

64 “What Is Renewable Energy?” United Nations, n.d. 

www.un.org/en/climatechange/what-is-renewable-energy.  

 

 

 

 

59 


