Palisades Fire in LA has zero containment

[mogandave]

54 minutes ago, jimmybcool said:

I woke up wondering (yeah I'm weird like that) about insurance claims for this fire.  What if one was escaping the fire, got blocked and to leave their car on the road.  Then police/fire come along and bash the car off the road destroying it.  What do they claim?  Is it covered by random fire on the road (homeowners cover when miles from home?) or accident?  Not like these people don't already have massive problems.

 

And note many lost their jobs as the business they worked at is gone.  And rebuilding won't be fast.  There will be a shortage of labor and materials for years.  I have massive sympathy for these folks. 

 

Climate change, no one to blame. 

[jas007]

58 minutes ago, John Drake said:

 

How many of the active insurers in LA are still going to be in business after this?

Don't forget, there's a reinsurance market.  The companies who write the policies have a way to insulate themselves from most of the financial hit.  Of course, the reinsurers are then left with a problem.   In the end, like the the bailout of the "too big to fail" banks, the taxpayers will end up footing much of the bill. 

[Hawaiian]

4 hours ago, jas007 said:

Don't forget, there's a reinsurance market.  The companies who write the policies have a way to insulate themselves from most of the financial hit.  Of course, the reinsurers are then left with a problem.   In the end, like the the bailout of the "too big to fail" banks, the taxpayers will end up footing much of the bill. 

One way or another, we all pay in the end, and the bill is going to be staggering.

[Yellowtail]

5 hours ago, Hawaiian said:

One way or another, we all pay in the end, and the bill is going to be staggering.

Tax recipients don't pay. 

[Hawaiian]

52 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Tax recipients don't pay. 

Who or what is a tax recipient?

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, Hawaiian said:

Who or what is a tax recipient?

Individuals that do not pay income taxes. 

[Hawaiian]

Just now, Yellowtail said:

Individuals that do not pay income taxes. 

Not really.  Just because you pay no income taxes doesn't mean you don't have a mortgage on a home being covered by insurance.  Almost surely premiums will rise.  You don't have a choice since homeowners insurance is required by the lender.

[Yellowtail]

3 minutes ago, Hawaiian said:

Not really.  Just because you pay no income taxes doesn't mean you don't have a mortgage on a home being covered by insurance.  Almost surely premiums will rise.  You don't have a choice since homeowners insurance is required by the lender.

You do not have to pay mortgage insurance in California if you put 20% down, or (I think) once you've got 20% equity.

 

But I was talking about the public money that will be used. 

[JonnyF]

Hopefully the citizens of California will reconsider their dedication to the Democrats after all this.

 

The Mayor was off on a jaunt to Ghana and Newsome is blaming everyone except himself. 

 

The fire chief was more concerned with DEI than the safety of the public.

 

A shameful failure of Liberal politics. 

[Hawaiian]

31 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You do not have to pay mortgage insurance in California if you put 20% down, or (I think) once you've got 20% equity.

 

But I was talking about the public money that will be used. 

I believe you are referring to PMI, private mortgage insurance that lenders require on loans not guaranteed by the federal government, such as VA loans.  I specifically mentioned homeowners insurance. 

Not to start an argument, but you were not clear what you meant.  The people you are referring to may not be directly impacted, but there will be some form of ramification for some of them.

To be truthful, I understand your point that it is the taxpayer that usually stands the jerk while many get a free ride.

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, Hawaiian said:

I believe you are referring to PMI, private mortgage insurance that lenders require on loans not guaranteed by the federal government, such as VA loans.  I specifically mentioned homeowners insurance. 

Not to start an argument, but you were not clear what you meant.  The people you are referring to may not be directly impacted, but there will be some form of ramification for some of them.

To be truthful, I understand your point that it is the taxpayer that usually stands the jerk while many get a free ride.

We are not arguing, we are "talking". It would not appear that at least the fire component homeowner's is not required as many people are without. 

 

Insurers are being regulated out of the state. 

[jas007]

1 hour ago, Hawaiian said:

Not really.  Just because you pay no income taxes doesn't mean you don't have a mortgage on a home being covered by insurance.  Almost surely premiums will rise.  You don't have a choice since homeowners insurance is required by the lender.

Not only that, but we all pay be way of inflation when the government is forced to spend money it doesn't have to bail out everyone.  That money will be "printed," and everyone will see higher price as a result  That's how it works.  

[Hawaiian]

1 minute ago, jas007 said:

Not only that, but we all pay be way of inflation when the government is forced to spend money it doesn't have to bail out everyone.  That money will be "printed," and everyone will see higher price as a result  That's how it works.  

Exactly.  The fallout from this disaster will find its way into every segment of the economy.

[Hawaiian]

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

We are not arguing, we are "talking". It would not appear that at least the fire component homeowner's is not required as many people are without. 

 

Insurers are being regulated out of the state. 

While no expert, my experience is that all homeowner policies cover fire.  Hurricane and flood coverage are additional.  I received a renewal notice from my homeowners insurance.  The new policy excludes the hurricane coverage in that is in the existing policy.  Then I received an offer from another carrier that was offering hurricane coverage.  The second company only sells hurricane coverage.  I eventually bought a policy that covers both homeowners and hurricane that was over $1,700 less.

Any homeowner not having any kind of basic coverage is crazy.

 

[Hawaiian]

29 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

We are not arguing, we are "talking". It would not appear that at least the fire component homeowner's is not required as many people are without. 

 

Insurers are being regulated out of the state. 

I believe every state has an agency that regulates all insurance carriers operating within their state.

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, Hawaiian said:

While no expert, my experience is that all homeowner policies cover fire.  Hurricane and flood coverage are additional.  I received a renewal notice from my homeowners insurance.  The new policy excludes the hurricane coverage in that is in the existing policy.  Then I received an offer from another carrier that was offering hurricane coverage.  The second company only sells hurricane coverage.  I eventually bought a policy that covers both homeowners and hurricane that was over $1,700 less.

Any homeowner not having any kind of basic coverage is crazy.

 

As I understand it, many of the policies had been canceled prior to the fire. 

 

As far as not having any coverage, it depends. At some point the risk does not justify the cost. 

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, Hawaiian said:

I believe every state has an agency that regulates all insurance carriers operating within their state.

As well they should. But insurers have to be profitable, or they move from the state. 

 

If you do not allow an insurer to charge premiums commensurate with risk, they can't survive.  

[jas007]

3 hours ago, Hawaiian said:

While no expert, my experience is that all homeowner policies cover fire.  Hurricane and flood coverage are additional.  I received a renewal notice from my homeowners insurance.  The new policy excludes the hurricane coverage in that is in the existing policy.  Then I received an offer from another carrier that was offering hurricane coverage.  The second company only sells hurricane coverage.  I eventually bought a policy that covers both homeowners and hurricane that was over $1,700 less.

Any homeowner not having any kind of basic coverage is crazy.

 

As an interesting aside, in California, loans on property are secured with a deed of trust.  And under California law, the lender's only real recourse is to foreclose on the deed of trust in the event of non-payment.  California has both an "once form of action rule" and an anti-deficiency statute.  So, anyone who was wiped out by the fire doesn't have to worry about the lender coming after them for any unpaid balance on the loan. The lender can foreclose on the deed of trust and reclaim the property.  That's it.  Again, banks or whoever is holding those loans will be in trouble. 

 

https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-code-of-civil-procedure/part-2-of-civil-actions/title-10-actions-in-particular-cases/chapter-1-actions-for-the-foreclosure-of-mortgages/section-726-one-form-of-action-judgment-of-court-decree-for-foreclosure/analysis?citingPage=1&sort=relevance

[Hawaiian]

1 hour ago, jas007 said:

As an interesting aside, in California, loans on property are secured with a deed of trust.  And under California law, the lender's only real recourse is to foreclose on the deed of trust in the event of non-payment.  California has both an "once form of action rule" and an anti-deficiency statute.  So, anyone who was wiped out by the fire doesn't have to worry about the lender coming after them for any unpaid balance on the loan. The lender can foreclose on the deed of trust and reclaim the property.  That's it.  Again, banks or whoever is holding those loans will be in trouble. 

 

https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-code-of-civil-procedure/part-2-of-civil-actions/title-10-actions-in-particular-cases/chapter-1-actions-for-the-foreclosure-of-mortgages/section-726-one-form-of-action-judgment-of-court-decree-for-foreclosure/analysis?citingPage=1&sort=relevance

Yes, very interesting.  This is why no one should assume that what applies in one state is the same in another. 

When my mother passed away I was tasked with the job of selling the properties held in her trust..  As the successor trustee, I worked closely with my realtor with whom I had a 40 year business relationship.  One of my sisters who lived in another state said I was doing it all wrong.  She wasted her money on an expensive attorney who set her straight.  End of story.

[jas007]

2 minutes ago, Hawaiian said:

Interesting.  This is why no one should assume that what applies in one state is the same in another. 

When my mother passed away I was tasked with the job of selling the properties held in her trust..  As the successor trustee, I worked closely with my realtor with whom I had a 40 year business relationship.  One of my sisters who lived in another state said I was doing it all wrong.  She wasted her money on an expensive attorney who set her straight.  End of story.

There are a number of states that have anti-deficiency laws.  People buying houses with mortgages or deeds of trust in those states have an advantage.  They can always just walk away. Send the keys back to the bank.  Ever heard the term "jingle mail" ?

[impulse]

7 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Individuals that do not pay income taxes. 

 

They'll suffer, too when their benefits get cut to bail out the banksters, the insurers and homeowners.

 

[impulse]

19 hours ago, mogandave said:

Climate change, no one to blame. 

 

While I would debate the premise that climate change is to blame (except to the extent that the climate has been changing since long before industrialization), even if it was, that's a predictable risk that could should have been accounted for with advance planning.  It wasn't a Black Swan event.  The Santa Anas and dry conditions coincide all the time.  They have since long before California was settled.

 

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

While I would debate the premise that climate change is to blame (except to the extent that the climate has been changing since long before industrialization), even if it was, that's a predictable risk that could should have been accounted for with advance planning.  It wasn't a Black Swan event.  The Santa Anas and dry conditions coincide all the time.  They have since long before California was settled.

 

You must be a MAGA fascist anti LGBTP climate denier 

[impulse]

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You must be a MAGA fascist anti LGBTP climate denier 

 

And proud of it.  Don't forget vax injured.  "The science" let me down.  Bigly.

 

[uncletiger]

8 hours ago, jas007 said:

As an interesting aside, in California, loans on property are secured with a deed of trust.  And under California law, the lender's only real recourse is to foreclose on the deed of trust in the event of non-payment.  California has both an "once form of action rule" and an anti-deficiency statute.  So, anyone who was wiped out by the fire doesn't have to worry about the lender coming after them for any unpaid balance on the loan. The lender can foreclose on the deed of trust and reclaim the property.  That's it.  Again, banks or whoever is holding those loans will be in trouble. 

 

https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-code-of-civil-procedure/part-2-of-civil-actions/title-10-actions-in-particular-cases/chapter-1-actions-for-the-foreclosure-of-mortgages/section-726-one-form-of-action-judgment-of-court-decree-for-foreclosure/analysis?citingPage=1&sort=relevance

 

The vast majority of the homes that were destroyed in Pacific Palisades were priced $5 million and up.  The actual structures however, were not particularly expensive. Most could probably be rebuilt for ~$400K.  The cost of the homes was entirely in the property, which as you've just confirmed, the bank can easily reclaim.

 

So the actual risk to the banking industry is very small, and effectively zero for homes with less than 90% mortgages.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/14/2025 at 9:47 PM, John Drake said:

 

Back in the US, I used to get oranges from Australia at very good prices. Always wondered how this managed to happen, without any illegals to pick their crops.

Any Kiwifruit for sale in the US or any country are there ONLY because people from all over the world came to prune, care for the vines, pick the fruit, sort the fruit, pack the fruit, and ship the fruit. If only NZ labour was used there wouldn't be any exports.

[jas007]

9 hours ago, uncletiger said:

 

The vast majority of the homes that were destroyed in Pacific Palisades were priced $5 million and up.  The actual structures however, were not particularly expensive. Most could probably be rebuilt for ~$400K.  The cost of the homes was entirely in the property, which as you've just confirmed, the bank can easily reclaim.

 

So the actual risk to the banking industry is very small, and effectively zero for homes with less than 90% mortgages.

You're probably right about that, if the actual value of the land remains high.  Location, location, location, as they say.  But all that means is that it's desirable real estate.  People want to live there and they'll pay a premium.  But will they be allowed to rebuild without years of red tape? California, with all is regulation, is probably one of the most difficult places on earth to get anything done. Imagine buying into a construction zone.  The entire place was burned to the ground.  How many years before it returns to "normal"? 

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, jas007 said:

You're probably right about that, if the actual value of the land remains high.  Location, location, location, as they say.  But all that means is that it's desirable real estate.  People want to live there and they'll pay a premium.  But will they be allowed to rebuild without years of red tape? California, with all is regulation, is probably one of the most difficult places on earth to get anything done. Imagine buying into a construction zone.  The entire place was burned to the ground.  How many years before it returns to "normal"? 

There will likely be state approved (wink wink nudge nudge) contractors that will be able to get permits expedited for state approved (wing wink nudge nudge) clients. 

 

So instead of being smaller homes on 1/4 acre lots it will be huge estates for the wealthy. 

[jas007]

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

There will likely be state approved (wink wink nudge nudge) contractors that will be able to get permits expedited for state approved (wing wink nudge nudge) clients. 

 

So instead of being smaller homes on 1/4 acre lots it will be huge estates for the wealthy. 

Having spent some years in California, all I can tell you for sure is that nothing much gets done there without years and years of people arguing about it.  Particularly when it comes to real estate. Land use control is a contentious issue. And in Los Angeles, especially, cases can drag on in the court system for years.  In any event, the homes in Pacific Palisades were already multi-million dollar properties.  I'm not sure how many people will be in the market for large $100,000,000 lots.

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Having spent some years in California, all I can tell you for sure is that nothing much gets done there without years and years of people arguing about it.  Particularly when it comes to real estate. Land use control is a contentious issue. And in Los Angeles, especially, cases can drag on in the court system for years.  In any event, the homes in Pacific Palisades were already multi-million dollar properties.  I'm not sure how many people will be in the market for large $100,000,000 lots.

The next election is less than two years away, they'll get something done. 

 

No shortage of rich people. 

 

I lived in SoCal from '57-'77 and again from '88-'99, when I relocated to Thailand. I used to feel like kissing the ground when I got off at LAX.