California’s Proposed SB 495: A Step Toward Simplifying Insurance Claims for Disaster Victims
Published Date: 03/21/2025
When a disaster strikes, homeowners should not have to navigate a maze of bureaucracy while simultaneously dealing with the emotional and financial toll of losing their homes. Yet, in the wake of California’s catastrophic wildfires, many victims have found themselves facing one more obstacle: itemizing every possession they’ve lost in order to receive insurance payouts. This requirement has often been both time-consuming and emotionally draining, especially for those who’ve lost everything.
In a recent interview on Insurance Hour with Karl Susman, California Senator Ben Allen discussed his proposed legislation, SB 495—also known as the Eliminate the List Act. This bill seeks to remove the burdensome itemization requirement for homeowners who experience a total loss due to disasters like wildfires. The conversation sheds light on the intersection of insurance regulation, consumer protection, and the broader insurance crisis facing California.
The Problem: Re-Traumatizing Homeowners with Bureaucracy
Imagine losing everything in a wildfire: your home, your personal belongings, and potentially irreplaceable family heirlooms. Then, as you attempt to rebuild your life, your insurance company demands that you itemize every single item you lost. This often means providing an exhaustive list of personal items, some of which may be impossible to remember, let alone prove.
As Senator Allen put it, this process is “a re-traumatizing experience.” Many fire victims have no photos or receipts of what was in their homes before the fire. While some insurance companies have waived the itemization requirement in certain cases, others have stuck rigidly to the policy, requiring extensive documentation from homeowners before approving claims.
SB 495 seeks to simplify this process by removing the itemization requirement entirely for total-loss claims, allowing homeowners to receive the full value of their personal property coverage without the need to submit an inventory list.
What SB 495 Proposes: A Shift in Insurance Recovery
The core of SB 495 is simple yet powerful: if a homeowner’s property is deemed a total loss—whether from wildfires, earthquakes, or other covered perils—the insurer must automatically pay 100% of the personal property coverage without requiring the homeowner to provide a detailed inventory.
This bill would provide immediate financial relief for homeowners, ensuring they can start rebuilding their lives without the added burden of itemization. Senator Allen emphasized that this bill would apply broadly to total-loss claims, not just those resulting from state-declared disasters like wildfires.
While California’s Department of Insurance (CDI) had previously urged insurers to pay upfront partial payouts for fire victims, SB 495 aims to standardize the process and ensure fairness for all Californians facing catastrophic loss.
Challenges: Retroactivity and Implementation
One of the key questions discussed during the interview was whether the bill would apply retroactively, allowing victims of past disasters to benefit from the new rule. Senator Allen explained that while retroactive application would be ideal, it presents significant challenges. Since insurance contracts are legal agreements, changing them after the fact could result in legal disputes or create financial strain on insurers. As such, the bill would likely apply only going forward.
However, Senator Allen has been actively urging insurers to step up voluntarily and extend these benefits to past victims of total-loss disasters.
Balancing Compassion with Contractual Realities
Karl Susman raised an important concern during the interview: while it’s crucial to make the claims process simpler for victims, might it lead to insurers demanding more documentation before a policy is issued? Senator Allen welcomed this shift, arguing that collecting information upfront—when homeowners still have their possessions—would be far easier than after a total loss.
This approach could also lead to more accurate coverage, helping homeowners better align their personal property coverage with the actual value of their belongings, rather than relying on rough estimates based on the value of the home.
The Human Side of the Issue: Compassion for Disaster Victims
Beyond the legal complexities, SB 495 is about humanizing the disaster recovery process. Senator Allen shared stories of constituents who lost everything in the Palisades and Altadena wildfires. For many of these homeowners, the demand to itemize their losses wasn’t just an inconvenience—it was an emotional burden that compounded their trauma.
“FEMA only pays about $750 initially,” Allen explained. “They’ll help more later, but only for things not covered by insurance. So if the insurance company doesn’t pay promptly, people are left without the resources they need to rebuild their lives.”
By ensuring that homeowners receive their full property value automatically, SB 495 provides immediate liquidity, helping victims stabilize their lives more quickly by covering essentials like housing, school supplies, and childcare.
Regulatory Context: The Insurance Crisis and the Need for Modernization
The broader insurance crisis in California remains a key factor in this discussion. With climate change exacerbating disasters like wildfires, insurers are facing increasing payouts, higher reinsurance costs, and market instability. Proposition 103, passed in 1988, is increasingly outdated for today’s climate-driven risks, making it difficult for insurers to price risk effectively and stay solvent.
Senator Allen acknowledged this tension: “If we pursue policies that collapse the solvency of the insurance system, we won’t be able to help anybody.” However, he also credited Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara and the CDI for their efforts to help fire victims by organizing recovery events and connecting carriers with victims.
Predictive modeling that allows insurers to use forward-looking climate data rather than relying solely on historical losses is one area where California’s regulatory system needs to evolve.
The “Socialization” of Insurance Costs: A Tough Equity Question
One of the most profound aspects of the discussion was Senator Allen’s take on the “socialization of risk.” Under current regulations, insurance companies must spread the costs of high-risk properties (such as homes in wildfire-prone areas) across all policyholders, even those in low-risk areas.
While this helps make insurance more affordable for high-risk residents, it raises equity concerns. “There’s a point at which the costs and risks are so high for some properties,” Allen noted, “that it raises questions of how much we should make everyone else pay for it.”
This is an ongoing issue, and as Karl Susman pointed out, a “one-size-fits-all” pricing system may not work when the risks differ drastically across regions.
The Future of Coverage: Reforming Insurance Systems in California
SB 495 is a crucial first step toward simplifying the claims process and protecting disaster victims. However, Senator Allen and Karl Susman also discussed broader reforms that may be needed to address California’s insurance crisis:
- Expanding consumer choice: Offering minimal coverage options for those who can’t afford full coverage.
- Mortgage-linked policies: Developing flexible insurance products tied to the lender’s investment.
- Modernizing Proposition 103: Allowing insurers to adjust rates based on current risk models rather than relying on outdated historical data.
Conclusion: A Vital Step Toward Fairer Insurance Practices
SB 495 isn’t just about removing bureaucratic barriers; it’s about restoring trust in the insurance system and ensuring that disaster victims are treated with compassion and fairness. By eliminating the itemization requirement, California can lead the way in modernizing insurance practices to meet the needs of its residents.
As Senator Allen and Karl Susman pointed out, this is a critical moment in California’s insurance landscape—a time to rethink how to balance consumer protection with market stability. By simplifying the claims process and advocating for regulatory reform, the state can begin to build a more resilient and humane insurance system for the future.
Author
