(1)Existing law establishes the Department of Insurance, headed by the Insurance Commissioner, which regulates insurers and insurance practices. When an insurer obtains reinsurance, existing law requires them to communicate all the representations of the original insured, and also all the knowledge and information they possess, as specified, which are material to the risk.

This bill would require, on or before March 1, 2026, and on or before March 1 every year thereafter, an admitted insurer in a group with written premiums in the prior year from specified lines of insurance totaling $50,000,000 to submit a report to the commissioner that includes data and information necessary to understand its reinsurance program placement data and use of probabilistic catastrophic models for the previous year. The bill would require the report to include data from the latest available reinsurance treaty year. The bill would require the insurer to promptly respond to inquiries from the commissioner upon submission of the report. The bill would require the commissioner to post to the departments internet website an aggregated report of the data in the report from insurers. The bill would require all other information submitted to the commissioner under these provisions be confidential, among other things, and exempt from the California Public Records Act.

The bill would require an admitted insurer to pay a civil penalty, to be fixed by the commissioner, but not to exceed $5,000 for each 30-day period the insurer is not in compliance with the reporting provisions. The bill would authorize an insurer to request, and the commissioner to grant, a 30-day extension to submit the report if needed due to unintended or unforeseen circumstances. The bill would authorize the commissioner to find that the failure to submit the report on time was willful and to increase the civil penalty to an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each 30-day period, up to a maximum of $100,000. The bill would allow the penalty to be appealed under specified provisions.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The bill would make related findings and declarations.

(2)Existing law defines the measure of indemnity for a loss under an open fire insurance policy and specifies time limits under which an insured must collect the full replacement cost of the loss. For a residential property insurance policy, existing law requires the measure of damages available to a policyholder to use to rebuild or replace the insured home at another location to be the amount that would have been recoverable had the insured dwelling been rebuilt at its original location, as specified. In the event of a total loss of an insured structure, existing law prohibits a policy issued or delivered in this state from containing a provision that limits or denies payment of the building code upgrade cost or the replacement cost on the basis that the insured has decided to rebuild at a new location or to purchase a built home at a new location. Existing law requires the insured to give written notice to the insurer of any loss within 60 days after the loss unless the time is extended in writing by the insurer.

The bill would prohibit an insurer from requiring an insured to provide a proof of loss less than 100 days after a loss relating to a state of emergency, as defined. The bill would require the insurer to provide the insured one or more extensions of 3 months for good cause, if the insured, acting in good faith and with reasonable diligence, encounters a delay in providing a proof of loss in specified circumstances beyond the control of the insured.

Existing law requires a residential property insurer to allow an insured that has suffered a loss relating to a declared state of emergency to combine the policy limits for primary dwelling and other structures, and to use the combined amount to rebuild or replace the dwelling, as specified. For a total loss of a furnished residence related to a declared state of emergency, existing law requires an insurer to provide an advance partial payment for contents of no less than 30% of the policy limit, as specified, without requiring an itemized claim.

The bill would instead require the insurer to provide 60% of the policy limit applicable to the personal property covered under the policy, up to a maximum of $350,000, when the loss is relating to a declared state of emergency, without requiring an itemized claim. The bill would also authorize an insurer to require an insured to sign an attestation form as a condition of receiving the advance payment for personal property loss stating that the insured acknowledges the residence was furnished and that they reasonably believe the personal property damaged or destroyed had a value that equates or exceeded the amount of the advance payment.

(1)Existing law establishes the Department of Insurance, headed by the Insurance Commissioner, which regulates insurers and insurance practices. When an insurer obtains reinsurance, existing law requires them to communicate all the representations of the original insured, and also all the knowledge and information they possess, as specified, which are material to the risk.

This bill would require, on or before March 1, 2026, and on or before March 1 every year thereafter, an admitted insurer in a group with written premiums in the prior year from specified lines of insurance totaling $50,000,000 to submit a report to the commissioner that includes data and information necessary to understand its reinsurance program placement data and use of probabilistic catastrophic models for the previous year. The bill would require the report to include data from the latest available reinsurance treaty year. The bill would require the insurer to promptly respond to inquiries from the commissioner upon submission of the report. The bill would require the commissioner to post to the departments internet website an aggregated report of the data in the report from insurers. The bill would require all other information submitted to the commissioner under these provisions be confidential, among other things, and exempt from the California Public Records Act.

The bill would require an admitted insurer to pay a civil penalty, to be fixed by the commissioner, but not to exceed $5,000 for each 30-day period the insurer is not in compliance with the reporting provisions. The bill would authorize an insurer to request, and the commissioner to grant, a 30-day extension to submit the report if needed due to unintended or unforeseen circumstances. The bill would authorize the commissioner to find that the failure to submit the report on time was willful and to increase the civil penalty to an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each 30-day period, up to a maximum of $100,000. The bill would allow the penalty to be appealed under specified provisions.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The bill would make related findings and declarations.

(2)Existing law defines the measure of indemnity for a loss under an open fire insurance policy and specifies time limits under which an insured must collect the full replacement cost of the loss. For a residential property insurance policy, existing law requires the measure of damages available to a policyholder to use to rebuild or replace the insured home at another location to be the amount that would have been recoverable had the insured dwelling been rebuilt at its original location, as specified. In the event of a total loss of an insured structure, existing law prohibits a policy issued or delivered in this state from containing a provision that limits or denies payment of the building code upgrade cost or the replacement cost on the basis that the insured has decided to rebuild at a new location or to purchase a built home at a new location. Existing law requires the insured to give written notice to the insurer of any loss within 60 days after the loss unless the time is extended in writing by the insurer.

The bill would prohibit an insurer from requiring an insured to provide a proof of loss less than 100 days after a loss relating to a state of emergency, as defined. The bill would require the insurer to provide the insured one or more extensions of 3 months for good cause, if the insured, acting in good faith and with reasonable diligence, encounters a delay in providing a proof of loss in specified circumstances beyond the control of the insured.

Existing law requires a residential property insurer to allow an insured that has suffered a loss relating to a declared state of emergency to combine the policy limits for primary dwelling and other structures, and to use the combined amount to rebuild or replace the dwelling, as specified. For a total loss of a furnished residence related to a declared state of emergency, existing law requires an insurer to provide an advance partial payment for contents of no less than 30% of the policy limit, as specified, without requiring an itemized claim.

The bill would instead require the insurer to provide 60% of the policy limit applicable to the personal property covered under the policy, up to a maximum of $350,000, when the loss is relating to a declared state of emergency, without requiring an itemized claim. The bill would also authorize an insurer to require an insured to sign an attestation form as a condition of receiving the advance payment for personal property loss stating that the insured acknowledges the residence was furnished and that they reasonably believe the personal property damaged or destroyed had a value that equates or exceeded the amount of the advance payment.

(1)Existing law establishes the Department of Insurance, headed by the Insurance Commissioner, which regulates insurers and insurance practices. When an insurer obtains reinsurance, existing law requires them to communicate all the representations of the original insured, and also all the knowledge and information they possess, as specified, which are material to the risk.

This bill would require, on or before March 1, 2026, and on or before March 1 every year thereafter, an admitted insurer in a group with written premiums in the prior year from specified lines of insurance totaling $50,000,000 to submit a report to the commissioner that includes data and information necessary to understand its reinsurance program placement data and use of probabilistic catastrophic models for the previous year. The bill would require the report to include data from the latest available reinsurance treaty year. The bill would require the insurer to promptly respond to inquiries from the commissioner upon submission of the report. The bill would require the commissioner to post to the departments internet website an aggregated report of the data in the report from insurers. The bill would require all other information submitted to the commissioner under these provisions be confidential, among other things, and exempt from the California Public Records Act.

The bill would require an admitted insurer to pay a civil penalty, to be fixed by the commissioner, but not to exceed $5,000 for each 30-day period the insurer is not in compliance with the reporting provisions. The bill would authorize an insurer to request, and the commissioner to grant, a 30-day extension to submit the report if needed due to unintended or unforeseen circumstances. The bill would authorize the commissioner to find that the failure to submit the report on time was willful and to increase the civil penalty to an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each 30-day period, up to a maximum of $100,000. The bill would allow the penalty to be appealed under specified provisions.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The bill would make related findings and declarations.

(2)Existing law defines the measure of indemnity for a loss under an open fire insurance policy and specifies time limits under which an insured must collect the full replacement cost of the loss. For a residential property insurance policy, existing law requires the measure of damages available to a policyholder to use to rebuild or replace the insured home at another location to be the amount that would have been recoverable had the insured dwelling been rebuilt at its original location, as specified. In the event of a total loss of an insured structure, existing law prohibits a policy issued or delivered in this state from containing a provision that limits or denies payment of the building code upgrade cost or the replacement cost on the basis that the insured has decided to rebuild at a new location or to purchase a built home at a new location. Existing law requires the insured to give written notice to the insurer of any loss within 60 days after the loss unless the time is extended in writing by the insurer.

The bill would prohibit an insurer from requiring an insured to provide a proof of loss less than 100 days after a loss relating to a state of emergency, as defined. The bill would require the insurer to provide the insured one or more extensions of 3 months for good cause, if the insured, acting in good faith and with reasonable diligence, encounters a delay in providing a proof of loss in specified circumstances beyond the control of the insured.

Existing law requires a residential property insurer to allow an insured that has suffered a loss relating to a declared state of emergency to combine the policy limits for primary dwelling and other structures, and to use the combined amount to rebuild or replace the dwelling, as specified. For a total loss of a furnished residence related to a declared state of emergency, existing law requires an insurer to provide an advance partial payment for contents of no less than 30% of the policy limit, as specified, without requiring an itemized claim.

The bill would instead require the insurer to provide 60% of the policy limit applicable to the personal property covered under the policy, up to a maximum of $350,000, when the loss is relating to a declared state of emergency, without requiring an itemized claim. The bill would also authorize an insurer to require an insured to sign an attestation form as a condition of receiving the advance payment for personal property loss stating that the insured acknowledges the residence was furnished and that they reasonably believe the personal property damaged or destroyed had a value that equates or exceeded the amount of the advance payment.

(1)Existing law establishes the Department of Insurance, headed by the Insurance Commissioner, which regulates insurers and insurance practices. When an insurer obtains reinsurance, existing law requires them to communicate all the representations of the original insured, and also all the knowledge and information they possess, as specified, which are material to the risk.

This bill would require, on or before March 1, 2026, and on or before March 1 every year thereafter, an admitted insurer in a group with written premiums in the prior year from specified lines of insurance totaling $50,000,000 to submit a report to the commissioner on that includes data and information necessary to understand its reinsurance program placement data and use of probabilistic catastrophic models for the previous year. The bill would require the report to include data from the latest available reinsurance treaty year. The bill would require the insurer to promptly respond to inquiries from the commissioner upon submission of the report. The bill would require the commissioner to post to the departments internet website an aggregated report of the data in the report from insurers. The bill would require all other information submitted to the commissioner under these provisions be confidential, among other things, and exempt from the California Public Records Act.

The bill would require an admitted insurer to pay a civil penalty, to be fixed by the commissioner, but not to exceed $5,000 for each 30-day period the insurer is not in compliance with the reporting provisions. The bill would authorize an insurer to request, and the commissioner to grant, a 30-day extension to submit the report if needed due to unintended or unforeseen circumstances. The bill would authorize the commissioner to find that the failure to submit the report on time was willful and to increase the civil penalty to an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each 30-day period, up to a maximum of $100,000. The bill would allow the penalty to be appealed under specified provisions.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The bill would make related findings and declarations.

(2)Existing law defines the measure of indemnity for a loss under an open fire insurance policy and specifies time limits under which an insured must collect the full replacement cost of the loss. For a residential property insurance policy, existing law requires the measure of damages available to a policyholder to use to rebuild or replace the insured home at another location to be the amount that would have been recoverable had the insured dwelling been rebuilt at its original location, as specified. In the event of a total loss of an insured structure, existing law prohibits a policy issued or delivered in this state from containing a provision that limits or denies payment of the building code upgrade cost or the replacement cost on the basis that the insured has decided to rebuild at a new location or to purchase a built home at a new location. Existing law requires the insured to give written notice to the insurer of any loss within 60 days after the loss unless the time is extended in writing by the insurer.

The bill would prohibit an insurer from requiring an insured to provide a proof of loss less than 180 100 days after a loss relating to a state of emergency, as defined. The bill would require the insurer to provide the insured one or more extensions of 6 3 months for good cause, if the insured, acting in good faith and with reasonable diligence, encounters a delay in approval for reconstruction providing a proof of loss in specified circumstances beyond the control of the insured.

Existing law requires a residential property insurer to allow an insured that has suffered a loss relating to a declared state of emergency to combine the policy limits for primary dwelling and other structures, and to use the combined amount to rebuild or replace the dwelling, as specified. For a total loss of a furnished residence related to a declared state of emergency, existing law requires an insurer to provide an advance partial payment for contents of no less than 30% of the policy limit, as specified, without requiring an itemized claim.

The bill would instead require the insurer to provide 100% 60% of the policy limit applicable to the personal property covered under the policy policy, up to a maximum of $350,000, when the loss is relating to a declared state of emergency, without requiring an itemized claim. The bill would also authorize an insurer to require an insured to sign an attestation form as a condition of receiving the advance payment for personal property loss stating that the insured acknowledges the residence was furnished and that they reasonably believe the personal property damaged or destroyed had a value that equates or exceeded the amount of the advance payment.

Existing law generally regulates classes of insurance, including fire insurance. Existing law authorizes an insurer to rescind a fire insurance policy if an alteration in the use or condition of the insured property that is within the control of the insured and is made without the insurers consent increases the risk of loss.

This bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes to that provision.

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 

Bill No: SB 495

Author: Allen (D), et al.

Amended: 7/17/25

Vote: 21

SENATE INSURANCE COMMITTEE: 5-2, 4/23/25

AYES: Rubio, Becker, Caballero, Padilla, Wahab

NOES: Niello, Jones

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 11-2, 4/29/25

AYES: Umberg, Allen, Arreguín, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Stern, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NOES: Niello, Valladares

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-1, 5/23/25

AYES: Caballero, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

NOES: Seyarto

NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle

SENATE FLOOR: 28-10, 6/3/25

AYES: Allen, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Hurtado, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NOES: Alvarado-Gil, Choi, Dahle, Grove, Jones, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Strickland, Valladares

NO VOTE RECORDED: Archuleta, Reyes

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 9/13/25 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Insurance

SOURCE: Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara/California Department of Insurance

DIGEST:

This bill, in the event of a covered total loss of a dwelling resulting from a state of emergency, requires insurers to offer 60 percent of the personal property policy coverage limit, up to $350,000, without an itemized claim from the policyholder. Extends the deadline for a policyholder to provide the insurer with proof of loss from 60 to 100 days following the loss. Expands the data collection authority of the California Department of Insurance (CDI) and its reporting responsibility to include information from certain insurers regarding reinsurance and use of catastrophe models.

Assembly Amendments

of 7/17/25 Add to this bill’s findings and declarations. Clarify the information disclosure requirements as part of the annual report mentioned in this bill that must be submitted by admitted insurers to the Insurance Commissioner. Revise the timelines regarding proof of loss requirements for policyholders as well as the extensions insurers must grant for providing proof of loss under certain specified circumstances beyond the control of the policyholder. Modify the percentage and maximum amount that insurers must pay to policyholders as part of their contents coverage without requiring an itemized claim in the case of a covered total loss. Further specify the manner in which policyholders may receive such payments, and their ability to recover additional amounts by filing a claim. Clarify the Insurance Commissioner’s enforcement authority under the reporting provisions of this bill.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires, when an insurer obtains reinsurance, that the insurer must communicate all the representations of the original insured, and also all the knowledge and information they possess, whether previously or subsequently acquired, which are material to the risk. The goal of such communication is to ensure that the reinsurer has relevant and necessary information to assess and manage the risk being transferred.
2. Requires the insured to provide the insurer a written proof of loss within 60 days following the loss, unless this timeframe is extended by the insurer.
3. Defines a “state of emergency” as the duly proclaimed existence of conditions of disaster or extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the state, caused by conditions such as air pollution, fire, flood, storm, epidemic, riot, drought, cyberterrorism, sudden and severe energy shortage, electromagnetic pulse attack, plant or animal infestation or disease, among other conditions.
4. States that in the event of a covered total loss of a primary dwelling resulting from a state of emergency, under a residential property insurance policy, the insurer shall offer a payment under the contents, also known as personal property, coverage in an amount no less than 30% of the policy limit of the covered dwelling structure, up to $250,000, without requiring the insured to file an itemized claim.

This bill:

1. Makes findings and declarations related to the state’s interest in understanding the trends in insurance markets and the reinsurance strategies and catastrophe models used by insurance companies, to expand the writing of insurance policies, and understand the systemic risk to the solvency of insurance companies that write policies in wildfire-distressed areas.
2. Requires that on or before March 1, 2026 and by every March 1 thereafter, admitted insurers with premiums from specified lines of $50,000,000 or more, must submit a report to the Insurance Commissioner, in a specified manner, on their reinsurance placement data and use of catastrophe models for the previous policy year. Reinsurance placement data can include the details of those policies, including the amount of coverage, the risks covered, and the terms of the agreement.
3. Specifies that such reports filed on or before March 1, 2026, shall include data from the latest available reinsurance treaty year. Subsequent reports must also include data available from the latest reinsurance treaty year when the report is due.
4. Stipulates that insurers must promptly respond to inquiries from the Insurance Commissioner or their representative regarding the report.
5. States that the Commissioner must annually post an aggregated report of this data, which does not identify specific insurers or their individual reinsurance practices, on CDI’s website.
6. Specifies that in the event of a loss relating to a state of emergency, an insurer shall not require the insured to provide proof of loss sooner than 100 days after the loss.
7. Requires that an insurer provide one or more additional extensions of three months for submission of proof of loss for good cause, if the insured, acting in good faith and with reasonable diligence, encounters a delay in providing proof of loss that is beyond the control of the insured, including:
   1. Delays by the insurer in acknowledging the claim or providing the claimant necessary forms, instructions, and reasonable assistance, including, but not limited to, specifying the information the claimant must provide for proof of loss.
   2. For personal property coverage, when a personal property inventory is premature if the primary structure has not begun construction.
   3. The unavailability of contractors to perform the necessary work, or create an estimate to rebuild, repair, or replace.
   4. The disability, injury, or incapacity of the insured.
   5. The inability of the insured to access the insured property as a result of governmental action or because the insured property is located in an area that is exposed to hazardous materials posing a health risk.
8. Stipulates that in the event of a covered total loss of a dwelling resulting from a state of emergency, insurers must offer 60 percent of the personal property policy coverage limit, up to $350,000 without requiring an itemized claim from the policyholder.
9. Specifies that after receiving such a payment described above that the insured may recover additional amounts by filing a claim.
10. Requires insurers to advise policyholders of both options to receive such payments.
11. Authorizes insurers to require policyholders to sign an attestation form as a condition of receiving an advance payment without filing an itemized claim. Such an attestation would affirm that the residence was furnished and that the value of the damaged or lost property had a greater value than the amount of the advanced payment.
12. Makes findings stating that in order to protect consumers, avoid unfair competitive advantages or disadvantages, and protect proprietary information received by the state under the bill’s provisions, that information reported as such must be treated in a confidential manner.
13. Specifies that the above information submitted to the Insurance Commissioner is exempt from the California Public Records Act. This information is not subject to subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, and that testimony by the Commissioner, the Commissioner’s staff, an employee of CDI, or a person to whom the reporting was disclosed, regarding the contents of any report submitted is inadmissible as evidence in a civil proceeding.
14. Subjects, upon failure to submit the required report mentioned above, an admitted insurer to a civil penalty to be fixed by the Commissioner in an amount not to exceed $5,000 for each 30-day period that the insurer is not in compliance. If the failure to comply is willful, the civil penalty is to be fixed in an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each 30-day period that the insurer is not in compliance, but cannot exceed an aggregate amount of $100,000.
    1. Requires the Commissioner to collect the amount payable and authorizes the Commission to bring an action in the name of the people of the State of California to enforce collection.
    2. Specifies these penalties are in addition to other penalties provided by law.
    3. Authorizes a penalty to be appealed in a court of competent jurisdiction or through a formal hearing under administrative adjudication provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act.
    4. Provides that the Insurance Commissioner may consider an insurer’s violation of these provisions as the basis for other enforcement action against an insurer, as authorized by law.
15. Authorizes an insurer to request, and the Commissioner to grant, a 30-day extension to submit a report if needed due to unintended or unforeseen delays. If the insurer fails to submit a report after the granted 30-day extension has passed, the Insurance Commissioner may find that the failure to submit the report was willful, and increase the civil penalty to an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each 30-day period that the insurer is not in compliance, but not to exceed an aggregate amount of $100,000.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 3012 (Wood, Chapter 258, Statutes of 2020). Among other provisions, required if a loss resulted from a state of emergency and an insured filed a claim for lost or damaged contents of a home, that the insurer pay at least 30% of the dwelling structure coverage limit, up to $250,000, without an inventory of the items.

SB 894 (Dodd and McGuire, Chapter 618, Statutes of 2018). Allowed a homeowner to use the full replacement value of other structures in a destroyed home to rebuild the insured structure without having to actually replace the other destroyed structures, and authorizes a policyholder to claim an amount of contents coverage calculated as 30% of the limit of coverage for the insured dwelling without providing an inventory of the lost contents.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

“Costs of approximately $22,000 in fiscal year (FY) 2025-26, $34,000 in FY 2026-27, and $21,000 in FY 2027-28 and annually thereafter to CDI for expanded data collection and reporting activities (Insurance Fund). Additionally, likely absorbable cost pressures to CDI to issue a bulletin or regulations regarding the attestation form (Insurance Fund).

Annual cost pressures (General Fund (GF) or Trial Court Trust Fund (TCTF)) of an unknown amount, potentially in excess of $150,000, to the courts in additional workload by allowing the IC to bring a civil action to enforce collection of the penalty imposed on an insurer that fails to comply with data reporting requirements and allowing the insurer to appeal the penalty. It is unclear how many civil actions and appeals may be filed statewide, but the estimated workload cost of one hour of court time is $1,000. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on staff and the TCTF may create a demand for increased court funding from the GF to perform existing duties. The Budget Act of 2025 provides $82 million ongoing GF to the TCTF for court operations.”

SUPPORT: (Verified 9/11/25)

Ricardo Lara, Insurance Commissioner/California Department of Insurance (Source)

California Community Foundation

Consumer Watchdog

Extreme Weather Survivors

Pacific Palisades Community Council

San Diego; County of

United Policyholders

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/11/25)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 9/13/25

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Flora, McKinnor

According to the bill’s sponsor, Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara:

“The heartbreak and challenges facing families and communities from wildfires across California are a stark reminder of how deeply these disasters impact all of us. These events have shown how the current formula for calculating payments to homeowners who are experiencing total loss due to a declared emergency are insufficient. The current formula used is 30% of primary structure (dwelling) coverage limits, and is capped at $250,000. Not only is this formula confusing for policyholders given it is based on primary structure coverage, but it often results in insufficient payments for properties with higher limits - examples of which were common in the recent Los Angeles wildfires. Policyholders are also required to complete a content inventory and to submit proof of loss to insurers within 60 days of loss. This process is unduly burdensome for policyholders and unrealistic - many policyholders in the recent wildfires did not have access to their insured property for an extended period of time due to unsafe or hazardous conditions.

As part of an effort to safeguard consumers following the 2025 wildfires in Southern California, I released a Notice that encouraged insurers to go beyond what is required under existing law and requested at least 75% to 100% of personal property coverage limits without an itemized list. Like similar events in 2018 and 2019 following the wildfires in Northern and Southern California, the majority of homeowners insurance companies agreed to provide no less than 75%. This collective response from insurers demonstrates that refining our current laws and policies to provide consumer protections will provide the support Californians need to recover and rebuild with dignity.

A key element of my Sustainable Insurance Strategy is to expand the writing of insurance policies for consumers in wildfire areas and protect the long-term strength of the California insurance market. Having clear, point-in-time data on reinsurance and catastrophe modeling associated with wildfire risk will help protect the strength of the California insurance market and help address availability concerns. With this data, the Department will publicly aggregate results, evaluating short- and long-term market trends and scenarios.”

Prepared by: Brandon Seto / INS. / (916) 651-4110

10/19/26 10:23:06

**** END ****

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 495

Author: Allen (D), et al.

Amended: 7/17/25

Vote: 21

SENATE INSURANCE COMMITTEE: 5-2, 4/23/25

AYES: Rubio, Becker, Caballero, Padilla, Wahab

NOES: Niello, Jones

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 11-2, 4/29/25

AYES: Umberg, Allen, Arreguín, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Stern, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NOES: Niello, Valladares

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-1, 5/23/25

AYES: Caballero, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

NOES: Seyarto

NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle

SENATE FLOOR: 28-10, 6/3/25

AYES: Allen, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Hurtado, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NOES: Alvarado-Gil, Choi, Dahle, Grove, Jones, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Strickland, Valladares

NO VOTE RECORDED: Archuleta, Reyes

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 69-0, 9/13/25 – Roll call vote not available.

SUBJECT: Insurance

SOURCE: Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara/California Department of Insurance

DIGEST:

This bill, in the event of a covered total loss of a dwelling resulting from a state of emergency, requires insurers to offer 60 percent of the personal property policy coverage limit, up to $350,000, without an itemized claim from the policyholder. Extends the deadline for a policyholder to provide the insurer with proof of loss from 60 to 100 days following the loss. Expands the data collection authority of the California Department of Insurance (CDI) and its reporting responsibility to include information from certain insurers regarding reinsurance and use of catastrophe models.

Assembly Amendments

of 7/17/25 Add to this bill’s findings and declarations. Clarify the information disclosure requirements as part of the annual report mentioned in this bill that must be submitted by admitted insurers to the Insurance Commissioner. Revise the timelines regarding proof of loss requirements for policyholders as well as the extensions insurers must grant for providing proof of loss under certain specified circumstances beyond the control of the policyholder. Modify the percentage and maximum amount that insurers must pay to policyholders as part of their contents coverage without requiring an itemized claim in the case of a covered total loss. Further specify the manner in which policyholders may receive such payments, and their ability to recover additional amounts by filing a claim. Clarify the Insurance Commissioner’s enforcement authority under the reporting provisions of this bill.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires, when an insurer obtains reinsurance, that the insurer must communicate all the representations of the original insured, and also all the knowledge and information they possess, whether previously or subsequently acquired, which are material to the risk. The goal of such communication is to ensure that the reinsurer has relevant and necessary information to assess and manage the risk being transferred.
2. Requires the insured to provide the insurer a written proof of loss within 60 days following the loss, unless this timeframe is extended by the insurer.
3. Defines a “state of emergency” as the duly proclaimed existence of conditions of disaster or extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the state, caused by conditions such as air pollution, fire, flood, storm, epidemic, riot, drought, cyberterrorism, sudden and severe energy shortage, electromagnetic pulse attack, plant or animal infestation or disease, among other conditions.
4. States that in the event of a covered total loss of a primary dwelling resulting from a state of emergency, under a residential property insurance policy, the insurer shall offer a payment under the contents, also known as personal property, coverage in an amount no less than 30% of the policy limit of the covered dwelling structure, up to $250,000, without requiring the insured to file an itemized claim.

This bill:

1. Makes findings and declarations related to the state’s interest in understanding the trends in insurance markets and the reinsurance strategies and catastrophe models used by insurance companies, to expand the writing of insurance policies, and understand the systemic risk to the solvency of insurance companies that write policies in wildfire-distressed areas.
2. Requires that on or before March 1, 2026 and by every March 1 thereafter, admitted insurers with premiums from specified lines of $50,000,000 or more, must submit a report to the Insurance Commissioner, in a specified manner, on their reinsurance placement data and use of catastrophe models for the previous policy year. Reinsurance placement data can include the details of those policies, including the amount of coverage, the risks covered, and the terms of the agreement.
3. Specifies that such reports filed on or before March 1, 2026, shall include data from the latest available reinsurance treaty year. Subsequent reports must also include data available from the latest reinsurance treaty year when the report is due.
4. Stipulates that insurers must promptly respond to inquiries from the Insurance Commissioner or their representative regarding the report.
5. States that the Commissioner must annually post an aggregated report of this data, which does not identify specific insurers or their individual reinsurance practices, on CDI’s website.
6. Specifies that in the event of a loss relating to a state of emergency, an insurer shall not require the insured to provide proof of loss sooner than 100 days after the loss.
7. Requires that an insurer provide one or more additional extensions of three months for submission of proof of loss for good cause, if the insured, acting in good faith and with reasonable diligence, encounters a delay in providing proof of loss that is beyond the control of the insured, including:
   1. Delays by the insurer in acknowledging the claim or providing the claimant necessary forms, instructions, and reasonable assistance, including, but not limited to, specifying the information the claimant must provide for proof of loss.
   2. For personal property coverage, when a personal property inventory is premature if the primary structure has not begun construction.
   3. The unavailability of contractors to perform the necessary work, or create an estimate to rebuild, repair, or replace.
   4. The disability, injury, or incapacity of the insured.
   5. The inability of the insured to access the insured property as a result of governmental action or because the insured property is located in an area that is exposed to hazardous materials posing a health risk.
8. Stipulates that in the event of a covered total loss of a dwelling resulting from a state of emergency, insurers must offer 60 percent of the personal property policy coverage limit, up to $350,000 without requiring an itemized claim from the policyholder.
9. Specifies that after receiving such a payment described above that the insured may recover additional amounts by filing a claim.
10. Requires insurers to advise policyholders of both options to receive such payments.
11. Authorizes insurers to require policyholders to sign an attestation form as a condition of receiving an advance payment without filing an itemized claim. Such an attestation would affirm that the residence was furnished and that the value of the damaged or lost property had a greater value than the amount of the advanced payment.
12. Makes findings stating that in order to protect consumers, avoid unfair competitive advantages or disadvantages, and protect proprietary information received by the state under the bill’s provisions, that information reported as such must be treated in a confidential manner.
13. Specifies that the above information submitted to the Insurance Commissioner is exempt from the California Public Records Act. This information is not subject to subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, and that testimony by the Commissioner, the Commissioner’s staff, an employee of CDI, or a person to whom the reporting was disclosed, regarding the contents of any report submitted is inadmissible as evidence in a civil proceeding.
14. Subjects, upon failure to submit the required report mentioned above, an admitted insurer to a civil penalty to be fixed by the Commissioner in an amount not to exceed $5,000 for each 30-day period that the insurer is not in compliance. If the failure to comply is willful, the civil penalty is to be fixed in an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each 30-day period that the insurer is not in compliance, but cannot exceed an aggregate amount of $100,000.
    1. Requires the Commissioner to collect the amount payable and authorizes the Commission to bring an action in the name of the people of the State of California to enforce collection.
    2. Specifies these penalties are in addition to other penalties provided by law.
    3. Authorizes a penalty to be appealed in a court of competent jurisdiction or through a formal hearing under administrative adjudication provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act.
    4. Provides that the Insurance Commissioner may consider an insurer’s violation of these provisions as the basis for other enforcement action against an insurer, as authorized by law.
15. Authorizes an insurer to request, and the Commissioner to grant, a 30-day extension to submit a report if needed due to unintended or unforeseen delays. If the insurer fails to submit a report after the granted 30-day extension has passed, the Insurance Commissioner may find that the failure to submit the report was willful, and increase the civil penalty to an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each 30-day period that the insurer is not in compliance, but not to exceed an aggregate amount of $100,000.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 3012 (Wood, Chapter 258, Statutes of 2020). Among other provisions, required if a loss resulted from a state of emergency and an insured filed a claim for lost or damaged contents of a home, that the insurer pay at least 30% of the dwelling structure coverage limit, up to $250,000, without an inventory of the items.

SB 894 (Dodd and McGuire, Chapter 618, Statutes of 2018). Allowed a homeowner to use the full replacement value of other structures in a destroyed home to rebuild the insured structure without having to actually replace the other destroyed structures, and authorizes a policyholder to claim an amount of contents coverage calculated as 30% of the limit of coverage for the insured dwelling without providing an inventory of the lost contents.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

“Costs of approximately $22,000 in fiscal year (FY) 2025-26, $34,000 in FY 2026-27, and $21,000 in FY 2027-28 and annually thereafter to CDI for expanded data collection and reporting activities (Insurance Fund). Additionally, likely absorbable cost pressures to CDI to issue a bulletin or regulations regarding the attestation form (Insurance Fund).

Annual cost pressures (General Fund (GF) or Trial Court Trust Fund (TCTF)) of an unknown amount, potentially in excess of $150,000, to the courts in additional workload by allowing the IC to bring a civil action to enforce collection of the penalty imposed on an insurer that fails to comply with data reporting requirements and allowing the insurer to appeal the penalty. It is unclear how many civil actions and appeals may be filed statewide, but the estimated workload cost of one hour of court time is $1,000. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on staff and the TCTF may create a demand for increased court funding from the GF to perform existing duties. The Budget Act of 2025 provides $82 million ongoing GF to the TCTF for court operations.”

SUPPORT: (Verified 9/11/25)

Ricardo Lara, Insurance Commissioner/California Department of Insurance (Source)

California Community Foundation

Consumer Watchdog

Extreme Weather Survivors

Pacific Palisades Community Council

San Diego; County of

United Policyholders

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/11/25)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

According to the bill’s sponsor, Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara:

“The heartbreak and challenges facing families and communities from wildfires across California are a stark reminder of how deeply these disasters impact all of us. These events have shown how the current formula for calculating payments to homeowners who are experiencing total loss due to a declared emergency are insufficient. The current formula used is 30% of primary structure (dwelling) coverage limits, and is capped at $250,000. Not only is this formula confusing for policyholders given it is based on primary structure coverage, but it often results in insufficient payments for properties with higher limits - examples of which were common in the recent Los Angeles wildfires. Policyholders are also required to complete a content inventory and to submit proof of loss to insurers within 60 days of loss. This process is unduly burdensome for policyholders and unrealistic - many policyholders in the recent wildfires did not have access to their insured property for an extended period of time due to unsafe or hazardous conditions.

As part of an effort to safeguard consumers following the 2025 wildfires in Southern California, I released a Notice that encouraged insurers to go beyond what is required under existing law and requested at least 75% to 100% of personal property coverage limits without an itemized list. Like similar events in 2018 and 2019 following the wildfires in Northern and Southern California, the majority of homeowners insurance companies agreed to provide no less than 75%. This collective response from insurers demonstrates that refining our current laws and policies to provide consumer protections will provide the support Californians need to recover and rebuild with dignity.

A key element of my Sustainable Insurance Strategy is to expand the writing of insurance policies for consumers in wildfire areas and protect the long-term strength of the California insurance market. Having clear, point-in-time data on reinsurance and catastrophe modeling associated with wildfire risk will help protect the strength of the California insurance market and help address availability concerns. With this data, the Department will publicly aggregate results, evaluating short- and long-term market trends and scenarios.”

Prepared by: Brandon Seto / INS. / (916) 651-4110

9/13/25 1:17:33

**** END ****

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 495

Author:(Allen)

As Amended Ver:July 17, 2025

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Makes various changes in California's insurance code relevant to the California Department of Insurance (CDI).

Major Provisions

1. Specifies that in the event of a loss relating to a state of emergency, an insurer shall not require the insured to provide proof of loss sooner than 100 days after the loss.
2. Requires that an insurer provide one or more additional extensions of three months for submission of proof of loss for good cause, if the insured, acting in good faith and with reasonable diligence, encounters a delay in approval for the reconstruction of the property beyond the control of the insured, including:
   1. Unavoidable permit delays.
   2. Lack of necessary construction materials.
   3. The unavailability of contractors to perform the necessary work.
   4. The disability, injury, or incapacity of the insured.
   5. The inability of the insured to access the insured property as a result of governmental action or because the insured property is located in an area that is exposed to hazardous materials posing a health risk.
3. Requires the insurer to provide 60% of the policy limit applicable to the personal property covered under the policy, up to a maximum of $350,000, when the loss is related to a declared state of emergency, without requiring an itemized claim. 
4. Requires that on or before March 1, 2026 and by every March 1 thereafter, admitted insurers with premiums from specified lines of $50,000,000 or more, must submit a report to the Insurance Commissioner, in a specified manner, on their reinsurance placement data and use of catastrophe models for the previous policy year. Reinsurance placement data can include the details of those policies, including the amount of coverage, the risks covered, and the terms of the agreement.
5. Specifies that such reports filed on or before March 1, 2026, shall include data from the latest available reinsurance treaty year. Subsequent reports must also include data available from the latest reinsurance treaty year when the report is due.
6. Stipulates that insurers must promptly respond to inquiries from the Insurance Commissioner or their representative regarding the report.
7. States that the Commissioner must annually post an aggregated report of this data, which does not identify specific insurers, on the Department of Insurance's website.
8. Makes findings stating that in order to protect consumers, avoid unfair competitive advantages or disadvantages, and protect proprietary information received by the state under the bill's provisions, that information reported as such must be treated in a confidential manner.
9. Specifies that the above information submitted to the Insurance Commissioner is exempt from the California Public Records Act. This information is not subject to subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, and that testimony by the Commissioner, the Commissioner's staff, an employee of the CDI, or a person to whom the reporting was disclosed, regarding the contents of any report submitted is inadmissible as evidence in a civil proceeding.
10. Subjects, upon failure to submit the required report mentioned above, an admitted insurer to a civil penalty to be fixed by the Commissioner in an amount not to exceed $5,000 for each 30-day period that the insurer is not in compliance. If the failure to comply is willful, the civil penalty is to be fixed in an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each 30-day period that the insurer is not in compliance, but cannot exceed an aggregate amount of $100,000.
    1. Requires the Commissioner to collect the amount payable and authorizes the Commission to bring an action in the name of the people of the State of California to enforce collection.
    2. Specifies these penalties are in addition to other penalties provided by law.
    3. Authorizes a penalty to be appealed in a court of competent jurisdiction or through a formal hearing under administrative adjudication provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act.
    4. Provides these provisions are the sole means for enforcement.
11. Authorizes an insurer to request, and the Commissioner to grant, a 30-day extension to submit a report if needed due to unintended or unforeseen delays. If the insurer fails to submit a report after the granted 30-day extension has passed, the Insurance Commissioner may find that the failure to submit the report was willful, and increase the civil penalty to an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each 30-day period that the insurer is not in compliance, but not to exceed an aggregate amount of $100,000.
12. Makes findings and declarations.

COMMENTS

1. Pacific Palisades and Eaton Catastrophic Wildfires: This measure is in response to the recent wildfires. AB 495 seeks to accomplish a number of things: gather data regarding reinsurance and the use of probabilistic catastrophic models for the previous year by admitted insurers for certain lines of insurance totaling $50,000,000. In recognition that this data is proprietary, the bill makes it confidential. The bill also requires insurers to offer 60 percent of the personal property policy coverage limit, maximum of $350,000 without an itemized claim from the policyholder in the event of a covered total loss of a dwelling resulting from a state of emergency, and provides more time for an insured to provide the insurer with proof of loss.

On February 6, 2025, the Insurance Commissioner issued a notice to all admitted and non-admitted residential property insurance companies asking them to exceed current legal obligations by providing 100 percent, but no less than 75%, of contents coverage limits without the need for policyholders to submit a detailed inventory of their personal property. This notice is an encouragement, not a requirement.

1. AB 3012: Following catastrophic California wildfires in 2017 and 2018, after thoughtful negotiations, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed AB 3012. This measure addressed at the time one of the biggest complaints of a policyholder following these disasters: contents itemization. Policyholders did not like the requirement that, in order to obtain full replacement value for personal property, a full itemization must be completed and then the items be actually replaced. AB 3012 offered policyholders an approximation of what a normal claim would be without needing to comply with the itemization and actual replacement requirements, while maintaining policyholders' rights to full recovery under the policy terms if the policyholder has a greater claim value than the "no-itemization" formula.

Specifically, AB 3012 as it relates to this measure established an exception to typical insurance policy language that required policyholders to itemize personal property losses and actually replace the destroyed items before being entitled to receive the full replacement value of the property. In the case of a total loss caused by a wildfire which is a declared emergency, the policyholder would be entitled to recover up to 30% of the dwelling structure coverage, up to $250,000, without inventory or actual replacement of the items. The law allows a policyholder to fully itemize and comply with other policy provisions in order to claim property losses that exceed that amount. Insurers are required to notify the insured of the option if they file a claim following an emergency.

This measure does not limit anyone's coverage and only impacts the inventory list. For example, under existing law, a policyholder is eligible for up to $250,000 without providing an inventory list but if the policy is covered to $600,000, the policyholder can still receive the difference by providing an inventory list.

According to the Author

According to the Author: "Under current law, a homeowner experiencing a total loss from a declared emergency may recover an advance payment of 30%, or up to $250,000, of the coverage limits of the insurance policy without an itemized claim. To receive the remainder of their policy payouts, homeowners are required to undergo the tedious and traumatizing task of creating an itemized list that includes the estimated value, age, and condition of every single item lost in the disaster. Even after policyholders complete a detailed inventory, many insurers only pay the depreciated value of these items unless the policyholder re-purchases and submits receipts for each and every item.

Due to the large scale of the January wildfires, many policyholders have been overwhelmed with the tasks of dealing with housing, family, employment, reconstruction, and other major adverse changes in their lives. SB 495 will ensure victims of future disasters receive expedited relief by removing the burdensome requirement to inventory home contents when filing insurance claims and provide more time for victims to submit proof of loss to their insurers.”

Arguments in Support

According to the sponsor, CDI, "The current formula used is 30% of primary structure (dwelling) coverage limits, and is capped at $250,000. Not only is this formula confusing for policyholders given it is based on primary structure coverage, but it often results in insufficient payments for properties with higher limits - examples of which were common in the recent Los Angeles wildfires. Policyholders are also required to complete a content inventory and to submit proof of loss to insurers within 60 days of loss. This process is unduly burdensome for policyholders and unrealistic - many policyholders in the recent wildfires did not have access to their insured property for an extended period of time due to unsafe or hazardous conditions."

Arguments in Opposition

None on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, costs of approximately $22,000 in fiscal year (FY) 2025-26, $34,000 in FY 2026-27, and $21,000 in FY 2027-28 and annually thereafter to CDI for expanded data collection and reporting activities (Insurance Fund). Additionally, likely absorbable cost pressures to CDI to issue a bulletin or regulations regarding the attestation form (Insurance Fund).

Annual cost pressures (General Fund (GF) or Trial Court Trust Fund (TCTF)) of an unknown amount, potentially in excess of $150,000, to the courts in additional workload by allowing the IC to bring a civil action to enforce collection of the penalty imposed on an insurer that fails to comply with data reporting requirements and allowing the insurer to appeal the penalty. It is unclear how many civil actions and appeals may be filed statewide, but the estimated workload cost of one hour of court time is $1,000. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on staff and the TCTF may create a demand for increased court funding from the GF to perform existing duties. The Budget Act of 2025 provides $82 million ongoing GF to the TCTF for court operations.

VOTES

SENATE FLOOR: 28-10-2

YES: Allen, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Hurtado, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO: Alvarado-Gil, Choi, Dahle, Grove, Jones, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Strickland, Valladares

ABS, ABST OR NV: Archuleta, Reyes

ASM INSURANCE: 15-0-2

YES: Calderon, Wallis, Addis, Alvarez, Ávila Farías, Berman, Chen, Ellis, Gipson, Hadwick, Harabedian, Nguyen, Ortega, Petrie-Norris, Michelle Rodriguez

ABS, ABST OR NV: Krell, Valencia

ASM JUDICIARY: 12-0-0

YES: Kalra, Dixon, Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Harabedian, Macedo, Pacheco, Papan, Sanchez, Stefani, Zbur

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 14-0-1

YES: Wicks, Sanchez, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Dixon, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González, Ahrens, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache, Ta

ABS, ABST OR NV: Tangipa

UPDATED

VERSION: July 17, 2025

CONSULTANT: Kathleen O'Malley / INS. / (916) 319-2086 FN: 0001352

Date of Hearing: August 20, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 495

Author:(Allen) – As Amended Ver:July 17, 2025

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill requires certain admitted insurers to annually submit reinsurance and catastrophe modeling data to the Insurance Commissioner (IC) and increases the percentage and amount of the personal property policy coverage limit a policyholder may recover without an itemized claim for a loss resulting from a state of emergency.

Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires certain admitted insurers, by March 1, 2026, and annually thereafter, to submit a report to the IC with the data necessary to understand the insurer’s reinsurance program placement data and use of probabilistic catastrophic models for the previous policy year. The insurer must promptly respond to the IC’s inquiries regarding the reported information and the IC must post an aggregated report based on the information on the Department of Insurance’s (CDI’s) website.
2. Requires an insurer to pay a civil penalty, in an amount determined by the IC, but not to exceed $5,000 ($10,000 for a willful violation) for each 30-day period the insurer is out of compliance with the reporting requirement, with a maximum penalty amount of $100,000. The IC may bring a civil action to enforce collection and an insurer may appeal the penalty administratively or in court.
3. Prohibits an insurer from requiring a policyholder to provide a proof of loss for a residential property insurance policy claim less than 100 days after a loss relating to a state of emergency, and requires an insurer to provide an extension to a policyholder who encounters a delay in providing proof of loss due to circumstances beyond the policyholder’s control.
4. Requires an insurer to pay 60%, instead of 30%, of the policy limit applicable to the personal property covered under the policy, up to a maximum of $350,000, instead of $250,000, without requiring an itemized claim, for a loss resulting from a state of emergency. An insurer may require the policyholder to sign an attestation form as a condition of receiving the advance payment. The IC may issue a bulletin or promulgate a regulation describing the parameters of the attestation form.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Costs of approximately $22,000 in fiscal year (FY) 2025-26, $34,000 in FY 2026-27, and $21,000 in FY 2027-28 and annually thereafter to CDI for expanded data collection and reporting activities (Insurance Fund). Additionally, likely absorbable cost pressures to CDI to issue a bulletin or regulations regarding the attestation form (Insurance Fund).
2. Annual cost pressures (General Fund (GF) or Trial Court Trust Fund (TCTF)) of an unknown amount, potentially in excess of $150,000, to the courts in additional workload by allowing the IC to bring a civil action to enforce collection of the penalty imposed on an insurer that fails to comply with data reporting requirements and allowing the insurer to appeal the penalty. It is unclear how many civil actions and appeals may be filed statewide, but the estimated workload cost of one hour of court time is $1,000. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on staff and the TCTF may create a demand for increased court funding from the GF to perform existing duties. The Budget Act of 2025 provides $82 million ongoing GF to the TCTF for court operations.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

Due to the large scale of the January wildfires, many policyholders have been overwhelmed with the tasks of dealing with housing, family, employment, reconstruction, and other major adverse changes in their lives. SB 495 will ensure victims of future disasters receive expedited relief by removing the burdensome requirement to inventory home contents when filing insurance claims and provide more time for victims to submit proof of loss to their insurers.

This bill is sponsored by IC Ricardo Lara and supported by consumer groups.

1. Background. Insurer Data. According to the IC, “Having clear, point-in-time data on reinsurance and catastrophe modeling associated with wildfire risk will help protect the strength of the California insurance market and help address availability concerns.” This bill requires certain insurers to submit a report to the IC with data necessary to understand the insurer’s reinsurance program placement data and use of catastrophic models for the previous policy year. This bill makes the information submitted to the IC exempt from public disclosure and authorizes the IC to bring an enforcement action to collect penalties from a non-compliant insurer, consistent with existing Insurance Code provisions related to records access and the IC’s enforcement powers.

Itemization of Claims. AB 3012 (Wood), Chapter 258, Statues of 2020, required an insurer to pay at least 30% of the dwelling structure coverage for the lost or damaged contents of a home, up to $250,000, without an inventory of items, if the loss resulted from a state of emergency. Prior to AB 3012, most insurance policies required a policyholder to itemize personal property losses and actually replace the destroyed items before being the insurer would compensate the policyholder for the full replacement value of the lost property.

In the aftermath of the Pacific Palisades and Eaton wildfires, the IC issued a notice to residential property insurers, requesting insurers exceed the obligations of AB 3012 by providing 100%, but no less than 75%, of a policyholder’s content coverage limit without requiring a detailed inventory of personal property. This bill originally proposed to require an insurer to pay out 100% of the coverage limit, without a cap on the amount or an itemization of claims. However, as noted in the Assembly Insurance Committee’s analysis of this bill:

While this bill may have a positive impact on wildfire victims, it is likely to increase costs and insurance rates. Because these provisions are limited to large-scale emergencies, insureds who lose their homes in a standard residential fire will not benefit but may pay higher premiums.

Following amendments adopted by the Assembly Insurance Committee to address the potential impact on insurance rates, this bill now increases the thresholds set by AB 3012 to 60% and $350,000, respectively. This bill also provides a policyholder more time to provide an insurer with proof of loss.

Analysis Prepared by: Irene Ho / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: July 15, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Ash Kalra, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 495

Author:(Allen) – As Amended Ver:July 10, 2025

PROPOSED CONSENT (As Proposed to be Amended)

SENATE VOTE: 28-10

SUBJECT: INSURANCE

KEY ISSUE: SHOULD CERTAIN INSURERS BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A REPORT TO THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER ON ITS REINSURANCE PROGRAM PLACEMENT DATA AND USE OF PROBABILISTIC CATASTROPHIC MODELS FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR; SHOULD THAT INFORMATION BE CONFIDENTIAL; AND SHOULD THE COMMISSIONER BE ABLE TO IMPOSE CIVIL PENALTIES ON AN INSURER, INCLUDING BY MEANS OF A CIVIL ACTION, FOR ITS FAILURE TO SUBMIT THE REPORT?

SYNOPSIS

This bill, like a number of others introduced this year, was introduced in response to the January 2025 Los Angeles wildfires. The most significant provision of the bill, sponsored by Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, increases the percentage of the personal property policy coverage limit without an itemized claim from the policyholder in the event of a covered total loss of a dwelling resulting from a state of emergency. The Assembly Committee on Insurance recently approved the bill by a vote of 15-0. The provisions of the bill that are in this Committee’s jurisdiction are related to the confidentiality of information submitted to the Insurance Commissioner; and the authority of the Commissioner to impose new civil penalties that are enforceable by an administrative proceeding and, if necessary, a civil action.

The bill requires certain insurers to submit a report to the Commissioner that only includes “data and information necessary to understand their reinsurance program placement data and use of catastrophe models for the previous policy year.” The bill specifies that information submitted to the Insurance Commissioner is confidential and exempt from public disclosure pursuant to the CPRA. While the language substantially limits public access to records in the possession of CDI, it is identical to other provisions of the Insurance Code. The bill provides that failure of an insurer to submit a report as required by the bill shall subject the insurer to a civil penalty to be fixed by the Commissioner. Importantly, the bill authorizes the Commissioner to collect the amount payable and bring an action in the name of the people of the State of California to enforce collection. This authority is consistent with a number of other existing sections of the Insurance Code.

The author has agreed to a minor clarifying amendment to address an internal inconsistency about whether the bill’s civil penalty provisions are the sole means of enforcement by the Commissioner. The amendment is incorporated into the bill SUMMARY, below, and explained in the analysis. The bill is supported by Consumer Watchdog (and the Insurance Commissioner) and has no opposition on file.

SUMMARY: Requires certain insurers to submit a report to the Insurance Commissioner on its reinsurance program placement data and use of probabilistic catastrophic models for the previous year; states that the information submitted is confidential; and imposes civil penalties – enforceable by the Commissioner by means of administrative or civil action - for failure to submit the report. Specifically, this bill:

1. Makes findings and declarations related to the state’s interest in understanding the trends in insurance markets and the reinsurance strategies and catastrophe models used by insurance companies, to expand the writing of insurance policies, and understand the systemic risk to the solvency of insurance companies that write policies in wildfire-distressed areas.
2. Requires that on or before March 1, 2026 and by every March 1 thereafter, admitted insurers with premiums from specified lines of $50,000,000 or more, must submit a report to the Insurance Commissioner, in a specified manner, that shall only include data and information necessary to understand their reinsurance program placement data and use of catastrophe models for the previous policy year. Reinsurance placement data can include the details of those policies, including the amount of coverage, the risks covered, and the terms of the agreement.
3. Specifies that such reports filed on or before March 1, 2026, shall include data from the latest available reinsurance treaty year. Subsequent reports must also include data available from the latest reinsurance treaty year when the report is due.
4. Stipulates that insurers must promptly respond to inquiries from the Insurance Commissioner or their representative regarding the report.
5. States that the Commissioner must annually post an aggregated report of this data, which does not identify specific insurers, on the Department of Insurance’s website.
6. Specifies that in the event of a loss relating to a state of emergency, an insurer shall not require the insured to provide proof of loss sooner than 100 days after the loss.
7. Stipulates that in the event of a covered total loss of a dwelling resulting from a state of emergency, insurers must offer 60 percent of the personal property policy coverage limit, up to a maximum of three hundred fifty thousand dollars ($350,000), without requiring the insured to file an itemized claim.
8. Makes findings stating that in order to protect consumers, avoid unfair competitive advantages or disadvantages, and protect proprietary information received by the state under the bill’s provisions, that information reported as such must be treated in a confidential manner.
9. Specifies that the above information submitted to the Insurance Commissioner is exempt from the California Public Records Act; that the information is not subject to subpoena or subpoena duces tecum; and that testimony by the Commissioner, the Commissioner’s staff, an employee of the Department of Insurance (CDI), or a person to whom the reporting was disclosed, regarding the contents of any report submitted is inadmissible as evidence in a civil proceeding.
10. Requires the Commissioner to post to the department’s internet website an aggregated report based on the data collected pursuant to the bill.
    1. Specifies that the report shall include only data and indices aggregated sufficiently to avoid identification of individual company reinsurance practices.
    2. Specifies that the aggregated report shall not identify an individual respondent or insurer and shall may be updated every year to reflect new data submitted by admitted insurers as required by the bill.
11. Subjects, upon failure to submit the required report mentioned above, an admitted insurer to a civil penalty to be fixed by the Commissioner in an amount not to exceed $5,000 for each 30-day period that the insurer is not in compliance. If the failure to comply is willful, the civil penalty is to be fixed in an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each 30-day period that the insurer is not in compliance, but cannot exceed an aggregate amount of $100,000.
    1. Requires the Commissioner to collect the amount payable and authorizes the Commission to bring an action in the name of the people of the State of California to enforce collection.
    2. Specifies these penalties are in addition to other penalties provided by law.
    3. Authorizes a penalty to be appealed in a court of competent jurisdiction or through a formal hearing under administrative adjudication provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act.
    4. Provides these provisions are the sole means for enforcement of the Act.
12. Authorizes an insurer to request, and the Commissioner to grant, a 30-day extension to submit a report if needed due to unintended or unforeseen delays. If the insurer fails to submit a report after the granted 30-day extension has passed, the Insurance Commissioner may find that the failure to submit the report was willful, and increase the civil penalty to an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each 30-day period that the insurer is not in compliance, but not to exceed an aggregate amount of $100,000.
13. Specifies that the penalty imposed may be appealed as specified.
14. Provides that in the event of a loss relating to a state of emergency, an insurer shall not require the insured to provide proof of loss less than 100 days after the loss; and requires the insurer to provide to the insured one or more additional extensions of three months for submission of proof of loss for good cause if the insured, acting in good faith and with reasonable diligence, encounters a delay in providing proof of loss that is beyond the control of the insured. Circumstances beyond the control of the insured include, but are not limited to specified facts and circumstances, where applicable to the specific claim.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides that the people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business and, therefore, the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny. Specifies that any law or rule that limits the public right of access shall be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation. (California Constitution, art. I, Section 3.)
2. Provides that, in enacting the California Public Records Act (CPRA), the Legislature, mindful of the right of individuals to privacy, finds and declares that access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state. (Government Code Section 7921.000.)
3. Provides that public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of a state or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record, exempted as otherwise provided; and that any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be available for inspection by any person requesting the record after deletion of the portions that are exempted by law. (Government Code Section 7922.525.)
4. Requires a public agency to justify withholding any record by demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of this division, or that on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record. (Government Code Section 7922.000.)
5. Provides that a public agency’s disclosure of confidential information or records to another governmental agency that agrees to treat the disclosed material as confidential does not constitute a waiver of any exemptions or privileges when the receiving government agency agrees to maintain confidentiality of the information. (Government Code Section 7921.505 (c).)
6. Provides for the regulation of insurance by the California Department of Insurance (CDI), which is under the control of the Insurance Commissioner (Commissioner). (Insurance Code Section 12921.)
7. Authorizes the Commissioner to issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum for witnesses to attend, testify, and produce documents before the Insurance Commissioner, on any subject touching the insurance business, or in aid of their duties. (Insurance Code Section 12924.)
8. Provides that the acts and orders of the Commissioner are subject to such review, or other action by a court of competent jurisdiction, as is permitted or authorized by law. (Insurance Code Section 12940.)
9. Requires an admitted insurer with written California premiums totaling $10,000,000 or more to submit a report to the Commissioner on its residential property experience data for the previous two years for policies written in California, including information on fire or wildfire-incurred losses. (Insurance Code Section 929.)
10. Specifies that the above information described in 9) is confidential and exempt from the California Public Records Act (CPRA); that information is not subject to subpoena or subpoena duces tecum; and that testimony by the Commissioner, the Commissioner’s staff, an employee of CDI, or a person to whom the reporting was disclosed, regarding the contents of any report submitted is inadmissible as evidence in a civil proceeding. (Insurance Code Section 929.1.)
11. Requires the Commissioner to post a report on wildfire risk compiled from the data on the CDI’s website. (Insurance Code Section 929.2.)
12. Requires an insurer to offer a payment under the contents coverage, generally referred to as personal property coverage, in an amount no less than 30 percent of the policy limit of the covered dwelling structure, up to $250,000, without requiring the insured to file an itemized claim in the event of a covered total loss of a primary dwelling resulting from a state of emergency under a residential property insurance policy. (Insurance Code Section 10103.7 (b).)
13. Defines “state of emergency” as the duly proclaimed existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the state caused by conditions such as air pollution, fire, flood, storm, epidemic, riot, drought, cyberterrorism, sudden and severe energy shortage, electromagnetic pulse attack, plant or animal infestation or disease, the Governor’s warning of an earthquake or volcanic prediction, or an earthquake, or other conditions, other than conditions resulting from a labor controversy or conditions causing a “state of war emergency,” which, by reason of their magnitude, are or are likely to be beyond the control of the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of any single county, city and county, or city and require the combined forces of a mutual aid region or regions to combat, or with respect to regulated energy utilities, a sudden and severe energy shortage requires extraordinary measures beyond the authority vested in the Public Utilities Commission. (Insurance Code Section 2051.5; Government Code Section 8558.)
14. Requires the insured to provide the insurer a written proof of loss within 60 days following the loss, unless this timeframe is extended by the insurer. (Insurance Code Section 6010.)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS: This bill, like a number of others introduced this year, was introduced in response to the January 2025 Los Angeles wildfires. The most significant provision of the bill, sponsored by Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, increases the percentage of the personal property policy coverage limit without an itemized claim from the policyholder in the event of a covered total loss of a dwelling resulting from a state of emergency. The Assembly Committee on Insurance recently approved the bill by a vote of 15-0.

The provisions of the bill that are in this Committee’s jurisdiction are related to the confidentiality of information submitted to the Insurance Commissioner; and the authority of the Commissioner to impose new civil penalties that are enforceable by an administrative proceeding and, if necessary, a civil action. According to the author:

Under current law, a homeowner experiencing a total loss from a declared emergency may recover an advance payment of 30%, or up to $250,000, of the coverage limits of the insurance policy without an itemized claim. To receive the remainder of their policy payouts, homeowners are required to undergo the tedious and traumatizing task of creating an itemized list that includes the estimated value, age, and condition of every single item lost in the disaster. Even after policyholders complete a detailed inventory, many insurers only pay the depreciated value of these items unless the policyholder re-purchases and submits receipts for each and every item.

Due to the large scale of the January wildfires, many policyholders have been overwhelmed with the tasks of dealing with housing, family, employment, reconstruction, and other major adverse changes in their lives. SB 495 will ensure victims of future disasters receive expedited relief by removing the burdensome requirement to inventory home contents when filing insurance claims and provide more time for victims to submit proof of loss to their insurers.

Public Access to Public Records. Access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state. (Section 7921.000.) In 2004, the right of public access was enshrined in the California Constitution with the passage of Proposition 59 (Nov. 3, 2004, statewide general election), placed on the ballot by a unanimous vote of both houses of the Legislature. SCA 1 (Burton, Ch. 1, Stats. 2004) amended the California Constitution to specifically protect the right of the public to access and obtain government records: “The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and therefore . . . the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.” (Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 3 (b)(1).) In 2014, voters approved Proposition 42 (Jun. 3, 2014, statewide direct primary election), placed on the ballot by a unanimous vote of both houses of the Legislature, (SCA 3 (Leno, Ch. 123, Stats. 2013), to further increase public access to government records by requiring local agencies to comply with the CPRA and the Ralph M. Brown Act, and with any subsequent statutory enactment amending either act, as provided. (Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 3 (b)(7).)

Under the California Public Records Act (CPRA), public records are open at all times during the office hours of a public agency for inspection by the public, unless exempted. (Section 7922.525.) A public record is defined as any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any public agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. (Section 7920.530.) Despite the CPRA’s general rule that public records are open to inspection and subject to disclosure, the CPRA provides exceptions providing that a document, or a portion thereof, is not subject to public disclosure. An exemption can be explicit in the CPRA itself, pursuant to another law, or justified by the agency’s determination that, based on the facts of the particular case, the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record. (See Sections 7922.000, 7922.525, 7922.530.)

Existing law, Section 929 of the Insurance Code, requires certain insurers to “submit a report to the commissioner on its residential property experience data for the previous two years for policies written in California.” Section 929.1 exempts such reports from disclosure to the public (even in response to a subpoena). Section 929.1 reads as follow:

929.1. Information submitted to the commissioner, as required by Section 929, shall be confidential pursuant to Section 7929.000 of the Government Code and exempt from the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1 of the Government Code). Additionally, that information shall not be subject to subpoena or subpoena duces tecum. Testimony by the commissioner, the commissioner’s staff, an employee of the department, or a person to whom the report required by Section 929 was disclosed, regarding the contents of any report submitted pursuant to Section 929, shall be inadmissible as evidence in a civil proceeding.

The Ability of the Insurance Commissioner to File Civil Enforcement Actions. While most state agencies are represented by the Attorney General in civil actions, the Insurance Commissioner has independent authority to bring (and defend) such actions. Under existing law, whenever the Commissioner believes, from evidence satisfactory to the Commissioner, that a person is violating or about to violate the Insurance Code -- or an order or requirement of the Commissioner issued or promulgated pursuant to authority expressly granted the Commissioner by the Insurance Code or by law--the Commissioner may do the following:

[B]bring an action in the name of the people of the State of California in the superior court of the State of California against the person to enjoin that person from continuing the violation or engaging therein or doing any act in furtherance thereof. In that action, an order or judgment may be entered awarding the preliminary or final injunction as is proper. (Insurance Code Section 12928.6 (a).)

In terms of authority to enforce a prior order, or penalty assessed by, the Commissioner:

The commissioner may apply to the clerk of the superior court for a judgment to enforce an order requiring a person to pay restitution, a monetary penalty, or reimburse the department for costs incurred by the department in prosecuting a matter. The commissioner’s application shall include a certified copy of the order and any associated decision. (Insurance Code Section 12928.6 (b)(1).)

As a result of 2022 legislation, SB 1040 (Rubio), Chap. 540, Stats. 2022, the Commissioner may seek restitution, in addition to other penalties, from individuals found to have been selling insurance products without a license. (Insurance Code Section 12928.7.) SB 1040 additionally authorized the Commissioner to seek recovery of the Department of Insurance’s costs related to investigating and prosecuting an action against unlicensed insurance sellers; and authorized the Commissioner to enforce an administrative judgment in court if the offender does not pay restitution and related penalties.

The bill. As mentioned above, the only provisions of the bill that are in this Committee’s jurisdiction are related to the confidentiality of information submitted to the Insurance Commissioner; the limitation on public access to those records; and the authority of the Commissioner to impose new civil penalties that are enforceable by an administrative proceeding and, if necessary, a civil action. The bill requires admitted insurers with premiums from specified lines of $50,000,000 or more to submit a report to the Commissioner that shall only include “data and information necessary to understand their reinsurance program placement data and use of catastrophe models for the previous policy year.” According to the Commissioner:

A key element of my Sustainable Insurance Strategy is to expand the writing of insurance policies for consumers in wildfire areas and protect the long-term strength of the California insurance market. Having clear, point-in-time data on reinsurance and catastrophe modeling associated with wildfire risk will help protect the strength of the California insurance market and help address availability concerns. With this data, the Department will publicly aggregate results, evaluating short- and long-term market trends and scenarios.

Confidentiality of records and limits on their disclosure. The bill specifies that information submitted to the Insurance Commissioner is confidential and exempt from public disclosure pursuant to the CPRA. Additionally, the bill provides that this information is not to be subject to subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, and that testimony by the Insurance Commissioner, the Insurance Commissioner’s staff, an employee of CDI, or a person to whom the reporting was disclosed regarding the contents of any report submitted under the Act is inadmissible as evidence in a civil proceeding. While the language substantially limits public access to records in the possession of CDI, it is identical to Section 929.1 of the Insurance Code in relation to information submitted by insurers regarding residential property experience data.

The terms for the information that is exempt from public disclosure under the bill –an insurer’s “reinsurance program placement data” and use of “probabilistic catastrophic models” for the previous year—are not defined in the bill. According to CDI, the terms are defined, at least for catastrophic loss modeling, in CDI regulations (reinsurance and catastrophe modeling are described in 10 C.C.R §§ 2644.25.2(h) and 2644.4.5(f), respectively). The bill’s legislative findings cast some light on what the information is, and why its disclosure could be contrary to an insurance company’s competitive business interests:

(a) Since 2006, the state of California has funded and undertaken four comprehensive climate change assessments designed to assess the impacts and risks from climate change. The most recent, California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, identified that if greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase, the frequency of extreme wildfires will increase.

(b) The Department of Insurance’s review of the multistate Climate Risk Disclosure Survey in 2023 showed that insurance companies commonly identified that the purchase of reinsurance is a primary strategy for addressing increased risks from catastrophic events such as wildfires and the use of catastrophe modeling is a prominent risk assessment tool.

. . .

(d) It is in the state’s interest to understand the trends in the insurance markets and the reinsurance strategies and models used by insurance companies, not only to expand the writing of insurance policies, but to understand the systemic risk to the solvency of insurance companies that write policies in wildfire-distressed areas.

(e) Regularly updated information will support the ability of the department to further understand the California residential and commercial property insurance market by providing point-in-time information so the department can evaluate reinsurance trends across the market.

Given that “reinsurance program placement data” and “probabilistic catastrophic models” are not defined in the bill, and the fact that the terms do not have a plain meaning and are not in common use (outside of the insurance industry), as the bill moves forward, the author may wish to amend the bill to define these terms.

Civil enforcement authority. The bill provides that the failure of an insurer to submit a report as required by the bill subjects the insurer to a civil penalty to be fixed by the Commissioner, not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000) for each 30-day period that the insurer is not in compliance, unless the failure to comply is willful, in which case the civil penalty shall be in an amount not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each 30-day period that the insurer is not in compliance, but not to exceed an aggregate amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000).

Importantly, the bill authorizes the Commissioner to collect the amount payable by the insurer and bring an action in the name of the people of the State of California to enforce collection. This authority is consistent with a number of other existing sections of the Insurance Code, including the general power of the Commissioner described in Section 12928.6, and statutes that deal with specific types of violations and enforcement, such as the authority to collect losses caused by unlicensed individuals enacted by SB 1040, described above. (See Insurance Code Section 12928.7.)

Author’s clarifying amendment. The bill in print is somewhat confusing because it says both that its civil penalties are “in addition to other penalties provided by law’ and that its civil penalty provisions are “the sole means for enforcement of this article.” In order to address this internal conflict, the author proposes the following minor clarifying amendment to Insurance Code Section 937.4 (c) to read as follows:

(c) The penalty imposed by this section may be appealed by means of a remedy provided by Section 12940, or by Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 11500) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. This section is the sole means for enforcement of this article.

(d) The commissioner may consider an insurer’s violation of this section or article as the basis for other enforcement action against an insurer, as authorized by law.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Consumer Watchdog writes that it is “in strong support of SB 495 to protect consumers from the onerous, traumatic and unnecessary burden of creating an itemized list of personal property for reimbursement under an insurance policy when a homeowner or renter suffers the total loss of their home.” It continues:

Having to submit an itemized list of belongings is an extreme hardship for someone who has just lost everything. The practice has been called re-traumatizing by disaster survivors who are forced to relive their loss in excruciating detail during the lengthy process of identifying room by room each belonging and memory that no longer exists.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Department of Insurance (sponsor)

Consumer Watchdog

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Alison Merrilees / JUD. / (916) 319-2334

Date of Hearing: July 9, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON INSURANCE

Lisa Calderon, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 495

Author:(Allen) – As Amended Ver:March 26, 2025

SENATE VOTE: 28-10

SUBJECT: Insurance

SUMMARY: Makes various changes in California’s insurance code relevant to the California Department of Insurance (CDI). Specifically, this bill:

1. Specifies that in the event of a loss relating to a state of emergency, an insurer shall not require the insured to provide proof of loss sooner than 180 days after the loss.
2. Requires that an insurer provide one or more additional extensions of six months for submission of proof of loss for good cause, if the insured, acting in good faith and with reasonable diligence, encounters a delay in approval for the reconstruction of the property beyond the control of the insured, including:
   1. Unavoidable permit delays.
   2. Lack of necessary construction materials.
   3. The unavailability of contractors to perform the necessary work.
   4. The disability, injury, or incapacity of the insured.
   5. The inability of the insured to access the insured property as a result of governmental action or because the insured property is located in an area that is exposed to hazardous materials posing a health risk.
3. Requires insurers to offer 100 percent of the personal property policy coverage limit without an itemized claim from the policyholder in the event of a covered total loss of a dwelling resulting from a state of emergency.
4. Requires that on or before March 1, 2026 and by every March 1 thereafter, admitted insurers with premiums from specified lines of $50,000,000 or more, must submit a report to the Insurance Commissioner, in a specified manner, on their reinsurance placement data and use of catastrophe models for the previous policy year. Reinsurance placement data can include the details of those policies, including the amount of coverage, the risks covered, and the terms of the agreement.
5. Specifies that such reports filed on or before March 1, 2026, shall include data from the latest available reinsurance treaty year. Subsequent reports must also include data available from the latest reinsurance treaty year when the report is due.
6. Stipulates that insurers must promptly respond to inquiries from the Insurance Commissioner or their representative regarding the report.
7. States that the Commissioner must annually post an aggregated report of this data, which does not identify specific insurers, on the Department of Insurance’s website.
   
8. Makes findings stating that in order to protect consumers, avoid unfair competitive advantages or disadvantages, and protect proprietary information received by the state under the bill’s provisions, that information reported as such must be treated in a confidential manner.
9. Specifies that the above information submitted to the Insurance Commissioner is exempt from the California Public Records Act. This information is not subject to subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, and that testimony by the Commissioner, the Commissioner’s staff, an employee of the CDI, or a person to whom the reporting was disclosed, regarding the contents of any report submitted is inadmissible as evidence in a civil proceeding.
10. Subjects, upon failure to submit the required report mentioned above, an admitted insurer to a civil penalty to be fixed by the Commissioner in an amount not to exceed $5,000 for each 30-day period that the insurer is not in compliance. If the failure to comply is willful, the civil penalty is to be fixed in an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each 30-day period that the insurer is not in compliance, but cannot exceed an aggregate amount of $100,000.
    1. Requires the Commissioner to collect the amount payable and authorizes the Commission to bring an action in the name of the people of the State of California to enforce collection.
    2. Specifies these penalties are in addition to other penalties provided by law.
    3. Authorizes a penalty to be appealed in a court of competent jurisdiction or through a formal hearing under administrative adjudication provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act.
    4. Provides these provisions are the sole means for enforcement.
11. Authorizes an insurer to request, and the Commissioner to grant, a 30-day extension to submit a report if needed due to unintended or unforeseen delays. If the insurer fails to submit a report after the granted 30-day extension has passed, the Insurance Commissioner may find that the failure to submit the report was willful, and increase the civil penalty to an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each 30-day period that the insurer is not in compliance, but not to exceed an aggregate amount of $100,000.
12. Makes findings and declarations.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides for the regulation of insurance by CDI, which is under the control of the Insurance Commissioner. (Insurance Code, Section 12921)

1. Authorizes the Commissioner to issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum for witnesses to attend, testify, and produce documents before the Insurance Commissioner, on any subject touching the insurance business, or in aid of their duties. (Insurance Code, Section 12924)
2. Provides that the acts and orders of the Commissioner are subject to such review, or other action by a court of competent jurisdiction, as is permitted or authorized by law. (Insurance Code, Section 12940)
3. Requires an admitted insurer with written California premiums totaling $10,000,000 or more to submit a report to the Commissioner on its residential property experience data for the previous two years for policies written in California, including information on fire- or wildfire-incurred losses. (Insurance Code, Section 929)
   1. Specifies that the above information submitted to the Commissioner is confidential and exempt from the California Public Records Act (CPRA); that information is not subject to subpoena or subpoena duces tecum; and that testimony by the Commissioner, the Commissioner’s staff, an employee of CDI, or a person to whom the reporting was disclosed, regarding the contents of any report submitted is inadmissible as evidence in a civil proceeding. (Insurance Code, Section 929.1)
   2. Requires the Commissioner to post a report on wildfire risk compiled from the data on the CDI’s website. (Insurance Code, Section 929.2)
4. Requires an insurer to offer a payment under the contents coverage, generally referred to as personal property coverage, in an amount no less than 30 percent of the policy limit of the covered dwelling structure, up to $250,000, without requiring the insured to file an itemized claim in the event of a covered total loss of a primary dwelling resulting from a state of emergency under a residential property insurance policy. (Insurance Code, Section 10103.7(b).)
5. Defines “state of emergency” as the duly proclaimed existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the state caused by conditions such as air pollution, fire, flood, storm, epidemic, riot, drought, cyberterrorism, sudden and severe energy shortage, electromagnetic pulse attack, plant or animal infestation or disease, the Governor’s warning of an earthquake or volcanic prediction, or an earthquake, or other conditions, other than conditions resulting from a labor controversy or conditions causing a “state of war emergency,” which, by reason of their magnitude, are or are likely to be beyond the control of the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of any single county, city and county, or city and require the combined forces of a mutual aid region or regions to combat, or with respect to regulated energy utilities, a sudden and severe energy shortage requires extraordinary measures beyond the authority vested in the Public Utilities Commission. (Insurance Code, Section 2051.5; Government Code, Section 8558)
6. Requires the insured to provide the insurer a written proof of loss within 60 days following the loss, unless this timeframe is extended by the insurer. (Insurance Code, Section 6010)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose of the bill: According to the Author: “Under current law, a homeowner experiencing a total loss from a declared emergency may recover an advance payment of 30%, or up to $250,000, of the coverage limits of the insurance policy without an itemized claim. To receive the remainder of their policy payouts, homeowners are required to undergo the tedious and traumatizing task of creating an itemized list that includes the estimated value, age, and condition of every single item lost in the disaster. Even after policyholders complete a detailed inventory, many insurers only pay the depreciated value of these items unless the policyholder re-purchases and submits receipts for each and every item.

Due to the large scale of the January wildfires, many policyholders have been overwhelmed with the tasks of dealing with housing, family, employment, reconstruction, and other major adverse changes in their lives. SB 495 will ensure victims of future disasters receive expedited relief by removing the burdensome requirement to inventory home contents when filing insurance claims and provide more time for victims to submit proof of loss to their insurers.”

1. Pacific Palisades and Eaton Catastrophic Wildfires: This measure is in response to the recent wildfires. AB 495 seeks to accomplish a number of things: gather data regarding reinsurance and the use of probabilistic catastrophic models for the previous year by admitted insurers for certain lines of insurance totaling $50,000,000. In recognition that this data is proprietary, the bill makes it confidential. The bill also requires insurers to offer 100 percent of the personal property policy coverage limit without an itemized claim from the policyholder in the event of a covered total loss of a dwelling resulting from a state of emergency, and provides more time for an insured to provide the insurer with proof of loss.

On February 6, 2025, the Insurance Commissioner issued a notice to all admitted and non-admitted residential property insurance companies asking them to exceed current legal obligations by providing 100 percent, but no less than 75%, of contents coverage limits without the need for policyholders to submit a detailed inventory of their personal property. This notice is an encouragement, not a requirement.

The committee received the following data as it relates to the above notice and the impacts this bill could have without recommended amendments. “At 30% of Cov A, the insurer would have paid $254,332 per claim for contents.  Instead, the insurer paid 75% of C, which ended up being $422,615.  That added $132 million to their loss compared to the current law loss.  A $350,000 cap would still have resulted in a $75 million loss relative to the current law requirements.”

1. Concerns: Potential Impact on Rates. Since 2018, the Legislature has enacted several proposals that expand benefits or protections to wildfire victims that could increase insurance rates, particularly in high-fire risk areas. However, there is little reliable information offered to project their potential impact on rates.

While this bill may have a positive impact on wildfire victims, it is likely to increase costs and insurance rates. Because these provisions are limited to large-scale emergencies, insureds who lose their homes in a standard residential fire will not benefit but may pay higher premiums.

1. AB 3012: Following catastrophic California wildfires in 2017 and 2018, after thoughtful negotiations, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed AB 3012. This measure addressed at the time one of the biggest complaints of a policyholder following these disasters: contents itemization. Policyholders did not like the requirement that, in order to obtain full replacement value for personal property, a full itemization must be completed and then the items be actually replaced. AB 3012 offered policyholders an approximation of what a normal claim would be without needing to comply with the itemization and actual replacement requirements, while maintaining policyholders' rights to full recovery under the policy terms if the policyholder has a greater claim value than the "no-itemization" formula.

Specifically, AB 3012 as it relates to this measure established an exception to typical insurance policy language that required policyholders to itemize personal property losses and actually replace the destroyed items before being entitled to receive the full replacement value of the property. In the case of a total loss caused by a wildfire which is a declared emergency, the policyholder would be entitled to recover up to 30% of the dwelling structure coverage, up to $250,000, without inventory or actual replacement of the items. The law allows a policyholder to fully itemize and comply with other policy provisions in order to claim property losses that exceed that amount. Insurers are required to notify the insured of the option if they file a claim following an emergency.

Five years later, SB 495 would require admitted insurers to offer 100 percent of the personal property policy coverage limit without an itemized claim from the policyholder in the event of a covered total loss of a dwelling resulting from a state of emergency and removes the $250,000 cap.

Standard homeowner’s insurance policies cover lost or damaged personal property as well as the home (“Coverage C”). While insurers underwrite Coverage A, they often use a formula to arrive at a policy limit for Coverage C that is high enough so that even outlier policyholders with above average personal property can claim their full losses if they can provide an inventory and documentation. AB 3012 provided a minimum Coverage C payment of at least 30% of Coverage A, up to $250,000, without the need to itemize or replace the property. This amount was found to be large enough so that most policyholders would not have to do an inventory and designed so that the standard will apply consistently across all insurers regardless of how they calculate Coverage C. 

It’s unclear what is wrong with the existing numbers established under AB 3012 or what data exists to conclude a higher percentage and no cap is necessary.

To be clear, this measure does not limit anyone’s coverage and only impacts the inventory list. For example, under existing law, a policyholder is eligible for up to $250,000 without providing an inventory list but if the policy is covered to $600,000, the policyholder can still receive the difference by providing an inventory list.

1. Coverage A and Coverage C: Policies differ on the types of “perils” they cover. The most basic policy is the “fire insurance” policy. Fire policies cover damage caused by fire and lightning, but not damage caused by hail or windstorm. Fire policies, like those offered through the California Fair Access to Insurance Requirements (FAIR) Plan, are far less common but offer a more affordable option.

The most common form of homeowners policy is known as the comprehensive multi-peril policy, frequently referred to as the “HO3” policy (based on the form name given to it by its publisher, the Insurance Services Office), and is a bundle of separate coverages. The HO3 policy protects against a variety of property and casualty (legal liability) losses with each having a separate coverage limit and, sometimes, sublimits. The primary coverage of the policy is to repair or replace the home or dwelling and often referred to as “Coverage A”; it establishes the baseline for calculating other limits. For example, Coverage B pays for damage or loss to other structures, such as sheds or freestanding garages; a typical limit would be 10% of Coverage A. “Coverage C” pays for lost or damaged personal property, such as furniture and clothing, and is usually capped based on Coverage A limit. Other coverages include additional living expenses, personal liability, medical payments, and a slim version of workers’ compensation insurance covering “occasional workers.”

Most policies include limits, deductibles, and exclusions as a way to control costs and force the insured to retain some risk. That process is also intended to motivate homeowners to prevent losses and avoid filing small value claims.

SB 495 moves 30% of Coverage A to 100% of Coverage C. Within the traditional setting of how insurance works moving to coverage C could provide an inequity among neighbors with similar homes. CDI asserts that homeowners are confused by the current formula and that moving to a new formula based on Coverage C will help consumers better understand their options.

1. Previous Legislation: AB 3012 (Wood & Daly, Chapter 258, Statutes of 2020), among other provisions, required the insurer to pay at least 30% of the dwelling structure coverage, up to $250,000, without an inventory of the items if a loss resulted from a state of emergency and an insured filed a claim for lost or damaged contents of a home.

SB 894 (Dodd, Chapter 618, Statutes of 2018) allowed a homeowner to use the full replacement value of other structures in a destroyed home to rebuild the insured structure without having to actually replace the destroyed other structures, and authorized a policyholder to claim an amount of contents coverage calculated as 30 percent of the limit of coverage for the insured dwelling without providing an inventory of the lost contents.

1. Double-Referral: Should this measure pass out of the Assembly Insurance Committee, it will move onto the Assembly Judiciary Committee. This committee did not analyze the provisions within the jurisdiction of the Assembly Judiciary Committee.
2. Arguments in Support: According to the sponsor, CDI, “The current formula used is 30% of primary structure (dwelling) coverage limits, and is capped at $250,000. Not only is this formula confusing for policyholders given it is based on primary structure coverage, but it often results in insufficient payments for properties with higher limits - examples of which were common in the recent Los Angeles wildfires. Policyholders are also required to complete a content inventory and to submit proof of loss to insurers within 60 days of loss. This process is unduly burdensome for policyholders and unrealistic - many policyholders in the recent wildfires did not have access to their insured property for an extended period of time due to unsafe or hazardous conditions.”
3. Arguments in Opposition: According to the “trades” (identified below under opposition), “The trades are opposed to SB 495 because it requires insurers to make fraudulent overpayments that will make insurance more expensive for millions of Californians as families struggle with the high cost of living. Furthermore, it would result in serious inequities between similarly situated consumers causing a new set of problems that should clearly be avoided.”
4. Recommended Amendments: It’s not a secret that the State Assembly made “affordability” a priority this year, rightfully so. The impacts of each piece of legislation on insurance rates is a huge concern of this committee. This committee held numerous oversight hearings on the Sustainable Insurance Strategy (SIS) where it’s been publicized that once fully implemented, the SIS reforms will have the ultimate impact of increased insurance rates on Californians. Even prior to the SIS being fully up and running, policyholders are already feeling the impacts of recent rate increases, which is out of the purview of the Legislature and in the power of the Insurance Commissioner. With this in mind, while also being sensitive to the victims of the recent wildfires, the committee is recommending the following amendments:

(To summarize, these amendments add clarifying changes to the report required by the insurers to CDI, changes number from 180 day to 100 days for a policyholder to provide proof of loss (existing law is 60 days), changes 6 months to 3 months extension to 100 days for good cause, changes 100% to 60% of contents coverage (existing law is 30% of Coverage A), adds a cap of $350,000 (existing law is $250,000), and allows an insurer to require an insured to sign an attestation form. Increasing the cap minimizes the impact of any inequity caused by the change in formula. The formula change is likely to spur greater standardization of Coverage C.)

1. On page 3, strike out lines 1 to 3, inclusive, and insert:

SECTION 1. Article 10.85 (commencing with Section 937) is added to Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 1 of the Insurance Code, to read:

1. On page 4, between lines 17 and 18, insert:

(1) The regularly updated information may include, but shall not be limited to, all of the following:

(A) The overview of a reinsurance program.

(B) The catastrophe program in place.

(C) The type of risk covered.

(D) The California-specific information.

(E) Year-over-year changes.

1. On page 4, in line 26, strike out “on” and insert:

that shall only include data and information necessary to understand

1. On page 4, in line 26, after “reinsurance” insert:

program

1. On page 5, between lines 18 and 19, insert:

(b) The report shall include only data and indices aggregated sufficiently to avoid identification of individual company reinsurance practices.

1. On page 5, in line 19, strike out “(b)” and insert:

(c)

1. On page 5, in line 20, strike out “shall” and insert:

may

1. On page 5, in line 21, strike out “an insurer.” and insert:

admitted insurers under Section 937.1.

1. On page 7, in line 11, strike out “180” and insert:

100

1. On page 7, in line 14, strike out “six” and insert:

three

1. On page 7, in lines 16 and 17, strike out “approval for reconstruction, or reconstruction of, the property that are” and insert:

providing proof of loss that is

1. On page 7, in line 19, after “insured” insert:

may

1. On page 7, in line 19, strike out “following:” and insert:

following, where applicable to the specific claim:

1. On page 7, strike out lines 20 and 21 and insert:

(i) Delays by the insurer in acknowledging the claim or providing the claimant necessary forms, instructions, and reasonable assistance, including, but not limited to, specifying the information the claimant must provide for proof of loss.

(ii) For personal property coverage, the fact that a personal property inventory is premature if the primary structure has not yet commenced construction.

1. On page 7, in line 22, after “to” insert:

either

1. On page 7, strike out line 23 and insert:

work or create an estimate to rebuild, repair, or replace.

1. On page 9, in line 8, strike out “100” and insert:

60

1. On page 9, in line 11, after the comma insert:

up to a maximum of three hundred fifty thousand dollars ($350,000),

1. On page 9, between lines 12 and 13, insert:

(2) After receiving the payment described in paragraph (1), the insured may recover additional amounts up to the policy limit for contents coverage by filing a claim pursuant to the terms of the policy for the loss of contents that exceeds the value of the payment provided pursuant to paragraph (1).

(3) When an insured files a claim relating to a state of emergency, as defined in Section 8558 of the Government Code, the insurer shall notify the insured of the option to receive payment for loss of contents pursuant to paragraph (1) and of the insured’s option to subsequently file a full itemized claim pursuant to paragraph (2).

(4) This subdivision does not affect payment under the policy for scheduled personal property.

(5) As a condition of receiving the advance payment made pursuant this subdivision, an insurer may require the insured sign an attestation form. The attesting form may request that the insured acknowledge the residence was furnished and that the insured reasonably believes the personal property damaged or destroyed had a value that equates or exceeded the amount of the advance payment. The attestation form shall not contain any misleading or inaccurate information. The commissioner may issue a bulletin or promulgate a regulation that describes the parameters of an attestation form.

1. On page 9, in line 27, strike out “(2)” and insert:

(6)

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Consumer Watchdog
Department of Insurance

Oppose

American Property Casualty Insurance Association
National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies
Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance Companies
Personal Insurance Federation of California

Analysis Prepared by: Kathleen O'Malley / INS. / (916) 319-2086

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 495

Author: Allen (D)

Amended: 3/26/25

Vote: 21

SENATE INSURANCE COMMITTEE: 5-2, 4/23/25

AYES: Rubio, Becker, Caballero, Padilla, Wahab

NOES: Niello, Jones

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 11-2, 4/29/25

AYES: Umberg, Allen, Arreguín, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Stern, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NOES: Niello, Valladares

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-1, 5/23/25

AYES: Caballero, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

NOES: Seyarto

NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle

SUBJECT: Insurance

SOURCE: Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara/California Department of Insurance

DIGEST:

This bill, in the event of a covered total loss of a dwelling resulting from a state of emergency, requires insurers to offer 100% of the personal property policy coverage limit without an itemized claim from the policyholder. Extends to the deadline for a policyholder to provide the insurer with proof of loss from 60 to 180 days following the loss. Expands the Department of Insurance’s data collection authority and reporting responsibility to include information from certain insurers regarding reinsurance and use of catastrophe models.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires, when an insurer obtains reinsurance, that the insurer must communicate all the representations of the original insured, and also all the knowledge and information they possess, whether previously or subsequently acquired, which are material to the risk. The goal of such communication is to ensure that the reinsurer has relevant and necessary information to assess and manage the risk being transferred.
2. Requires the insured to provide the insurer a written proof of loss within 60 days following the loss, unless this timeframe is extended by the insurer.
3. Defines a “state of emergency” as the duly proclaimed existence of conditions of disaster or extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the state, caused by conditions such as air pollution, fire, flood, storm, epidemic, riot, drought, cyberterrorism, sudden and severe energy shortage, electromagnetic pulse attack, plant or animal infestation or disease, among other conditions.
4. States that in the event of a covered total loss of a primary dwelling resulting from a state of emergency, under a residential property insurance policy, the insurer shall offer a payment under the contents, also known as personal property, coverage in an amount no less than 30% of the policy limit of the covered dwelling structure, up to $250,000, without requiring the insured to file an itemized claim.

This bill:

1. Makes findings and declarations related to the state’s interest in understanding the trends in insurance markets and the reinsurance strategies and catastrophe models used by insurance companies, to expand the writing of insurance policies, and understand the systemic risk to the solvency of insurance companies that write policies in wildfire-distressed areas.
2. Requires that on or before March 1, 2026 and by every March 1 thereafter, admitted insurers with premiums from specified lines of $50,000,000 or more, must submit a report to the Insurance Commissioner, in a specified manner, on their reinsurance placement data and use of catastrophe models for the previous policy year. Reinsurance placement data can include the details of those policies, including the amount of coverage, the risks covered, and the terms of the agreement.
3. Specifies that such reports filed on or before March 1, 2026, shall include data from the latest available reinsurance treaty year. Subsequent reports must also include data available from the latest reinsurance treaty year when the report is due.
4. Stipulates that insurers must promptly respond to inquiries from the Insurance Commissioner or their representative regarding the report.
5. States that the Commissioner must annually post an aggregated report of this data, which does not identify specific insurers, on the Department of Insurance’s website.
6. Specifies that in the event of a loss relating to a state of emergency, an insurer shall not require the insured to provide proof of loss sooner than 180 days after the loss.
7. Requires that an insurer provide one or more additional extensions of six months for submission of proof of loss for good cause, if the insured, acting in good faith and with reasonable diligence, encounters a delay in approval for the reconstruction of the property beyond the control of the insured, including:
   1. Unavoidable permit delays.
   2. Lack of necessary construction materials.
   3. The unavailability of contractors to perform the necessary work.
   4. The disability, injury, or incapacity of the insured.
   5. The inability of the insured to access the insured property as a result of governmental action or because the insured property is located in an area that is exposed to hazardous materials posing a health risk.
8. Stipulates that in the event of a covered total loss of a dwelling resulting from a state of emergency, insurers must offer 100 percent of the personal property policy coverage limit without requiring an itemized claim from the policyholder.
9. Makes findings stating that in order to protect consumers, avoid unfair competitive advantages or disadvantages, and protect proprietary information received by the state under the bill’s provisions, that information reported as such must be treated in a confidential manner.
10. Specifies that the above information submitted to the Insurance Commissioner is exempt from the California Public Records Act. This information is not subject to subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, and that testimony by the Commissioner, the Commissioner’s staff, an employee of the Department of Insurance (CDI), or a person to whom the reporting was disclosed, regarding the contents of any report submitted is inadmissible as evidence in a civil proceeding.
11. Subjects, upon failure to submit the required report mentioned above, an admitted insurer to a civil penalty to be fixed by the Commissioner in an amount not to exceed $5,000 for each 30-day period that the insurer is not in compliance. If the failure to comply is willful, the civil penalty is to be fixed in an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each 30-day period that the insurer is not in compliance, but cannot exceed an aggregate amount of $100,000.
    1. Requires the Commissioner to collect the amount payable and authorizes the Commission to bring an action in the name of the people of the State of California to enforce collection.
    2. Specifies these penalties are in addition to other penalties provided by law.
    3. Authorizes a penalty to be appealed in a court of competent jurisdiction or through a formal hearing under administrative adjudication provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act.
    4. Provides these provisions are the sole means for enforcement of the Act.
12. Authorizes an insurer to request, and the Commissioner to grant, a 30-day extension to submit a report if needed due to unintended or unforeseen delays. If the insurer fails to submit a report after the granted 30-day extension has passed, the Insurance Commissioner may find that the failure to submit the report was willful, and increase the civil penalty to an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each 30-day period that the insurer is not in compliance, but not to exceed an aggregate amount of $100,000.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 3012 (Wood, Chapter 258, Statutes of 2020). Among other provisions, required if a loss resulted from a state of emergency and an insured filed a claim for lost or damaged contents of a home, that the insurer pay at least 30% of the dwelling structure coverage limit, up to $250,000, without an inventory of the items.

SB 894 (Dodd and McGuire, Chapter 618, Statutes of 2018). Allowed a homeowner to use the full replacement value of other structures in a destroyed home to rebuild the insured structure without having to actually replace the other destroyed structures, and authorizes a policyholder to claim an amount of contents coverage calculated as 30% of the limit of coverage for the insured dwelling without providing an inventory of the lost contents.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

“CDI reports additional administrative costs of approximately $22,000 in Fiscal Year (FY) 2025–26, $34,000 in FY 2026–27, and $21,000 ongoing (Insurance Fund) for expanded data collection activities and for annual posting of the aggregated report on this data.

Unknown enforcement costs to CDI to address noncompliance with the reporting and other requirements of this bill. To the extent this workload is significant, then there may be additional cost pressures to CDI. Enforcement workload to CDI will depend on, among other things, the level of non-compliance by insurers, the volume of complaints received, and complexity of any subsequent investigations. For context, CDI's website indicates the department annually receives more than 200,000 consumer assistance calls, and investigates more than 56,000 consumer complaints. It is unknown if or to what extent this bill may result in additional complaint intake and investigations for CDI. However, CDI anticipates overall enforcement costs to be absorbable. Civil penalty revenue may offset CDI’s costs for additional enforcement workload to some extent.”

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/23/25)

Ricardo Lara, Insurance Commissioner/California Department of Insurance (Source)

Consumer Watchdog

Extreme Weather Survivors

Pacific Palisades Community Council

United Policyholders

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/23/25)

American Property Casualty Insurance Association
National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies
Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance Companies
Personal Insurance Federation of California

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

According to the bill’s sponsor, Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara:

“SB 495 will improve on previous efforts to ameliorate one of the biggest pain points for homeowners who lose their homes and all their possessions in a wildfire: The onerous policy condition that compels them to go through the emotionally draining, time-consuming and absurd process of itemizing and valuing every single item they lost in order to collect the personal property insurance benefits owed to them. Post-disaster home inventory lists typically take well over a year to complete, with survivors having to remember thousands of items and minutiae such as toothbrushes, to a child’s school supplies, to the contents of a kitchen drawers, etc.

This bill will once and for all free people who have lost everything in a wildfire from the absurd obligation to compile exhaustive itemized lists—often hundreds of pages long, just to collect policy benefits they’ve paid for. SB 495 removes this burden and allows survivors to appropriately focus on getting rehoused and replacing their possessions by requiring insurers to pay 100% of personal property limits without an itemized inventory after a total loss in a declared emergency.

The bill also extends the deadline for submitting proof of loss to 180 days—with flexibility for further extensions—recognizing the realities of post-disaster life. Additionally, we commend the bill's provision that gives the California Department of Insurance the authority to gather data on insurers' use of reinsurance, catastrophe modeling, and other wildfire-related risk tools. This data will help policymakers and regulators protect both consumers and the long-term stability of the state’s insurance market.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:

Opponents from the insurance industry state:

“California residents are clearly concerned about the cost of living, and insurers have become constrained in their ability to provide coverage to homeowners because of outdated rate setting rules that will be improved through Commissioner Lara’s Sustainable Insurance Strategy (SIS). SB 495 would drastically increase the cost of insurance because it requires payments that are far in excess of what they actually lost in personal property. These large overpayments will show up in form of higher rates for all consumers. The bill will also create different payments between similarly situated consumers which is generally prohibited in insurance law.

AB 3012 (2020) already addressed the issue SB 495 seeks to fix by requiring 30% of dwelling coverage up to $250,000. Under the provisions of AB 3012, all similarly situated policyholders receive the same amount of contents coverage. For example, two neighbors who both have Coverage A amounts of $1 million would receive $300,000 in contents coverage without having to do an inventory. This ensures equity for insureds and a fair, even competitive marketplace for insurers.

Under the provisions of SB 495, the same policyholders could get vastly different contents coverage payments based on how their insurance companies determine contents coverage. People living next to each other in identical houses could get vastly different contents coverage. The trades are opposed to SB 495 because it will make insurance significantly more expensive for millions of Californians at a time families are already struggling with the high cost of living, and it would result in serious inequities between similarly situated consumers.”

Prepared by: Brandon Seto / INS. / (916) 651-4110

5/26/25 13:54:31

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

SB 495 (Allen) - Insurance

Bill Summary:

SB 495 requires insurers to offer 100 percent of the personal property policy coverage limit without an itemized claim from the policyholder in the event of a covered total loss of a dwelling resulting from a state of emergency, and extends the deadline for a policyholder to provide the insurer with proof of loss, as specified. SB 495 also expands the California Department of Insurance’s (CDI) data collection authority and reporting responsibility to include information from certain insurers regarding reinsurance and use of catastrophe models.

Fiscal Impact:

• CDI reports additional administrative costs of approximately $22,000 in Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26, $34,000 in FY 2026-27, and $21,000 ongoing (Insurance Fund) for expanded data collection activities and for annual posting of the aggregated report on this data.
• Unknown enforcement costs to CDI to address noncompliance with the reporting and other requirements of this bill. To the extent this workload is significant, then there may be additional cost pressures to CDI. Enforcement workload to CDI will depend on, among other things, the level of non-compliance by insurers, the volume of complaints received, and complexity of any subsequent investigations. For context, CDI's website indicates the department annually receives more than 200,000 consumer assistance calls, and investigates more than 56,000 consumer complaints. It is unknown if or to what extent this bill may result in additional complaint intake and investigations for CDI. However, CDI anticipates overall enforcement costs to be absorbable. Civil penalty revenue may offset CDI’s costs for additional enforcement workload to some extent.

Background:

Reinsurance is a risk management tool used by insurance companies with the aim of protecting themselves from large financial losses. According to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), reinsurance is often referred to as “insurance for insurance companies.” By purchasing reinsurance, insurance companies can manage their risk by offsetting a portion of their liabilities to other insurance companies. The companies accepting this risk (reinsurance companies) are compensated by receiving a portion of the insurance premiums collected from policyholders. The insurers and reinsurers will negotiate around what is a reasonable level of insurance premiums for the insurer to cede to the reinsurer based on various risk factors. Usually, insurance contracts that are reinsured are set up by the insurance company or by insurance brokers. However, sometimes a reinsurance company will “place” a new insurance contract on behalf of an insurance company. In such cases, the insurance company can choose to reinsure that contract with that same reinsurance company or go with a different reinsurance provider.

Proposed Law:

• By March 1, 2026 and by March 1 of every year thereafter, requires an admitted insurer in a group with written premiums in the prior year from fire, allied lines, private flood, homeowners, farmowners, and commercial non liability lines totaling $50 million or more to submit a report to CDI on its reinsurance placement data and use of probabilistic catastrophic models for the previous year for policies.
  • Requires reports filed on or before March 1, 2026 to include data from the latest available reinsurance treaty year, and requires subsequent reports to likewise include data from the latest reinsurance treaty year available when the report is due.
• Authorizes an insurance holding company system to submit a consolidated report for all insurers comprising the holding company system.
• Upon submission of the report, requires the insurer to promptly respond to inquiries from the commissioner regarding any information in the report.
• Requires the commissioner to post on CDI’s website an aggregated report based on the data collected pursuant to the new reporting requirement. Prohibits the aggregated report to identify an individual respondent or insurer and requires the report to be updated every year to reflect new data submitted by an insurer.
• Imposes a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each 30-day period that the insurer is not in compliance with the new reporting requirement. If failure to comply is willful, imposes a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for each 30-day period that the insurer is not in compliance, but not to exceed an aggregate amount of $100,000.
• Authorizes an insurer to request a 30-day extension to submit a report; however if the insurer fails to submit the report after the commissioner grants the extension, and the commissioner finds failure on the part of the insurer was willful, authorizes the commissioner to increase the civil penalty.
• Authorize a penalty to be appealed in a court of competent jurisdiction or through a formal hearing under administrative adjudication provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act.
• Authorizes the commissioner to promulgate regulations to the new reporting requirements.
• In the event of a loss relating to a state of emergency, prohibits an insurer from requiring the insured to provide proof of loss sooner than 180 days after the loss.
• Requires that an insurer provide one or more additional extensions of six months for submission of proof of loss for good cause, if the insured, acting in good faith and with reasonable diligence, encounters a delay in approval for the reconstruction of the property beyond the control of the insured, including:
  • Unavoidable permit delays.
  • Lack of necessary construction materials.
  • The unavailability of contractors to perform the necessary work.
  • The disability, injury, or incapacity of the insured.
  • The inability of the insured to access the insured property as a result of governmental action or because the insured property is located in an area that is exposed to hazardous materials posing a health risk.
• Stipulates that in the event of a covered total loss of a dwelling resulting from a state of emergency, insurers must offer 100 percent of the personal property policy coverage limit without requiring an itemized claim from the policyholder.
• States legislative findings and declarations.

Related Legislation:

AB 3012 (Wood, Chapter 258, Statutes of 2020) among other provisions, requires an insurer to pay at least 30% of the dwelling structure coverage limit, up to $250,000, without an inventory of the items if a loss resulted from a state of emergency.

SB 894 (Dodd and McGuire, Chapter 618, Statutes of 2018) authorizes a homeowner to use the full replacement value of other structures in a destroyed home to rebuild the insured structure without having to actually replace the other destroyed structures; and authorizes a policyholder to claim an amount of contents coverage calculated as 30% of the limit of coverage for the insured dwelling without providing an inventory of the lost contents.

-- END --

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2025-2026 Regular Session

Bill No: SB 495 (Author:Allen)

Version: March 26, 2025

Hearing Date: April 29, 2025

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: AM

SUBJECT

Insurance

DIGEST

This bill requires an admitted insurer in a group with written premiums in the prior year from certain lines totaling $50,000,000 or more to submit a report to the Insurance Commissioner on its reinsurance placement data and use of probabilistic catastrophic models for the previous year, as provided, and states that the information submitted is confidential. The bill authorizes the imposition of civil penalties for failure to submit the report and specifies how an admitted insurer can appeal such a penalty. The bill also requires insurers to offer 100 percent of the personal property policy coverage limit without an itemized claim from the policyholder in the event of a covered total loss of a dwelling resulting from a state of emergency, and extends the deadline for a policyholder to provide the insurer with proof of loss from 60 to 180 days.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In January 2025, a number of deadly wildfires in Los Angeles, including the Palisades and Eaton fires, collectively burned over 39,000 acres,^[1] caused at least 30 deaths,^[2] destroyed over 16,000 structures, and resulted in property damage estimates ranging from $28 to $53.8 billion.^[3] This bill is brought in response to these fires. The bill seeks to gather data regarding reinsurance and the use of probabilistic catastrophic models for the previous year by admitted insurers for certain lines of insurance totaling $50,000,000. In recognition that this data is proprietary, the bill makes it confidential. The bill also requires insurers to offer 100 percent of the personal property policy coverage limit without an itemized claim from the policyholder in the event of a covered total loss of a dwelling resulting from a state of emergency, and provides more time for an insured to provide the insurer with proof of loss. The bill is sponsored by Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, and supported by Consumer Watchdog and United Policyholders. The bill is opposed by the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, the Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance Companies, and the Personal Insurance Federation of California. The bill passed the Senate Insurance Committee on a vote of 5 to 2.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Provides for the regulation of insurance by the California Department of Insurance (CDI), which is under the control of the Insurance Commissioner (Commissioner). (Ins. Code § 12921.)

1. Authorizes the Commissioner to issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum for witnesses to attend, testify, and produce documents before the Insurance Commissioner, on any subject touching the insurance business, or in aid of their duties. (Ins. Code § 12924.)
2. Provides that the acts and orders of the Commissioner are subject to such review, or other action by a court of competent jurisdiction, as is permitted or authorized by law. (Ins. Code § 12940.)
3. Requires an admitted insurer with written California premiums totaling $10,000,000 or more to submit a report to the Commissioner on its residential property experience data for the previous two years for policies written in California, including information on fire- or wildfire-incurred losses. (Ins. Code § 929.)
   1. Specifies that the above information submitted to the Commissioner is confidential and exempt from the California Public Records Act (CPRA); that information is not subject to subpoena or subpoena duces tecum; and that testimony by the Commissioner, the Commissioner’s staff, an employee of CDI, or a person to whom the reporting was disclosed, regarding the contents of any report submitted is inadmissible as evidence in a civil proceeding. (Ins. Code § 929.1.)
   2. Requires the Commissioner to post a report on wildfire risk compiled from the data on the CDI’s website. (Ins. Code § 929.2.)
4. Requires an insurer to offer a payment under the contents coverage, generally referred to as personal property coverage, in an amount no less than 30 percent of the policy limit of the covered dwelling structure, up to $250,000, without requiring the insured to file an itemized claim in the event of a covered total loss of a primary dwelling resulting from a state of emergency under a residential property insurance policy. (Ins. Code § 10103.7(b).)
5. Defines “state of emergency” as the duly proclaimed existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the state caused by conditions such as air pollution, fire, flood, storm, epidemic, riot, drought, cyberterrorism, sudden and severe energy shortage, electromagnetic pulse attack, plant or animal infestation or disease, the Governor’s warning of an earthquake or volcanic prediction, or an earthquake, or other conditions, other than conditions resulting from a labor controversy or conditions causing a “state of war emergency,” which, by reason of their magnitude, are or are likely to be beyond the control of the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of any single county, city and county, or city and require the combined forces of a mutual aid region or regions to combat, or with respect to regulated energy utilities, a sudden and severe energy shortage requires extraordinary measures beyond the authority vested in the Public Utilities Commission. (Ins. Code § 2051.5; Gov. Code § 8558.)
6. Requires the insured to provide the insurer a written proof of loss within 60 days following the loss, unless this timeframe is extended by the insurer. (Ins. Code § 6010.)

This bill:

1. Establishes the Insurance and Climate Risk Market Intelligence Act (Act), which requires on or before March 1, 2026, and annually thereafter, an admitted insurer in a group with written premiums in the prior year from fire, allied lines, private flood, homeowners, farmowners, and commercial nonliability lines totaling $50,000,000 or more to submit a report to the commissioner on its reinsurance placement data and use of probabilistic catastrophic models for the previous year for policies, as specified.
2. Specifies that the above information submitted to the Commissioner is confidential and exempt from the CPRA.
   1. This information is not subject to subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, and that testimony by the Commissioner, the Commissioner’s staff, an employee of CDI, or a person to whom the reporting was disclosed, regarding the contents of any report submitted is inadmissible as evidence in a civil proceeding.
3. Failure to submit the report under 1, above, subjects an admitted insurer to a civil penalty to be fixed by the Commissioner in an amount not to exceed $5,000 for each 30-day period that the insurer is not in compliance. If the failure to comply is willful, the civil penalty is to be fixed in an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each 30-day period that the insurer is not in compliance, but cannot exceed an aggregate amount of $100,000.
   1. Requires the Commissioner to collect the amount payable and authorizes the Commission to bring an action in the name of the people of the State of California to enforce collection.
   2. Specifies these penalties are in addition to other penalties provided by law.
   3. Authorize a penalty to be appealed in a court of competent jurisdiction or through a formal hearing under administrative adjudication provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act.
   4. Provides these provisions are sole means for enforcement of the Act.
4. Authorizes an insurer to request, and the Commissioner to grant, a 30-day extension to submit a report if needed due to unintended or unforeseen delays.
   1. If the insurer fails to submit a report after the granted 30-day extension has passed, the Insurance Commissioner may find that the failure to submit the report was willful and increase the civil penalty to an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each 30-day period that the insurer is not in compliance, but not to exceed an aggregate amount of $100,000.
5. Requires the Insurance Commissioner to post to the CDI’s website an aggregated report based on the data collected under the Act.
   1. Specifies that the aggregated report cannot identify an individual respondent or insurer and must be updated every year to reflect new data submitted by an insurer.
6. Makes legislative findings and declarations related to the state’s interest in understanding the trends in insurance markets and the reinsurance strategies and models used by insurance companies, to expand the writing of insurance policies, and understand the systemic risk to the solvency of insurance companies that write policies in wildfire-distressed areas.

COMMENTS

1. Stated need for the bill

The author writes:

Under current law, a homeowner experiencing a total loss from a declared emergency may recover an advance payment of 30%, or up to $250,000, of the coverage limits of the insurance policy without an itemized claim. To receive the remainder of their policy payouts, homeowners are required to undergo the tedious and traumatizing task of creating an itemized list that includes the estimated value, age, and condition of every single item lost in the disaster. Even after policyholders complete a detailed inventory, many insurers only pay the depreciated value of these items unless the policyholder re-purchases and submits receipts for each and every item.

Due to the large scale of the January wildfires, many policyholders have been overwhelmed with the tasks of dealing with housing, family, employment, reconstruction, and other major adverse changes in their lives. Some insurance companies are requiring that policyholders complete the itemized inventory and submit proof of loss within 60 days of the damage or destruction of their homes. This has proven to be unrealistic for policyholders experiencing total loss in these wildfires. Unsafe and hazardous conditions prevented homeowners from accessing their property to survey damage for nearly a month after the wildfires.

SB 495 will expedite relief to victims of future disasters by removing the burdensome requirement to inventory home contents when filing insurance claims for coverage they have been paying for and provide more time for victims to submit proof of loss to their insurers.

Ricardo Lara, Insurance Commissioner, the sponsor of the bill writes:

[…]This bill would, in the event of a declared emergency, require insurers to pay 100% of personal property (contents) coverage limits to policyholders who experience a total loss without requiring policyholders to submit a detailed inventory for at least 180 days. The goal is to make the process clearer, more supportive, and less burdensome for policyholders who are already navigating a traumatic experience. This bill will also require insurers to provide my Department annual, point in-time reinsurance and catastrophe model data for policies written in California for the previous year.

The heartbreak and challenges facing families and communities from wildfires across California are a stark reminder of how deeply these disasters impact all of us. These events have shown how the current formula for calculating payments to homeowners who are experiencing total loss due to a declared emergency are insufficient. The current formula used is 30% of primary structure (dwelling) coverage limits, and is capped at $250,000. Not only is this formula confusing for policyholders given it is based on primary structure coverage, but it often results in insufficient payments for properties with higher limits - examples of which were common in the recent Los Angeles wildfires. Policyholders are also required to complete a content inventory and to submit proof of loss to insurers within 60 days of loss. This process is unduly burdensome for policyholders and unrealistic - many policyholders in the recent wildfires did not have access to their insured property for an extended period of time due to unsafe or hazardous conditions.

As part of an effort to safeguard consumers following the 2025 wildfires in Southern California, I released a Notice that encouraged insurers to go beyond what is required under existing law and requested at least 75% and up to 100% of personal property coverage limits without an itemized list. My Department determined most homeowner’s insurance companies responded positively to my call. Like similar events in 2018 and 2019 following the wildfires in Northern and Southern California, the majority of homeowners insurance companies agreed to provide no less than 75% of contents coverage without a detailed inventory, including some who agreed to provide 100%. This collective response from insurers demonstrates that refining our current laws and policies to provide consumer protections will provide the support Californians need to recover and rebuild with dignity.[…]

1. Insurance and Climate Risk Market Intelligence Act – provisions in this Committee’s jurisdiction

This bill is brought in response to the January 2025 Los Angeles wildfires. The provisions of the bill in this Committee’s jurisdiction are the provisions related to the confidentiality of information submitted to the Insurance Commissioner and the limitation on access to public records and the imposition of new civil penalties. The bill specifies that information submitted to the Insurance Commissioner under the Act is confidential and exempt from the CPRA. Additionally, the bill provides that this information is not to be subject to subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, and that testimony by the Insurance Commissioner, the Insurance Commissioner’s staff, an employee of CDI, or a person to whom the reporting was disclosed regarding the contents of any report submitted under the Act is inadmissible as evidence in a civil proceeding. This provision is identical to the one found in the statutes that requires reporting on residential property experience data in Section 929 of the Insurance Code.

1. Confidentiality and public records

Under the CPRA, public records are open to inspection by the public at all times during the office hours of the agency, unless they are exempt from disclosure. (Gov. Cod § 7922.525.) A “public record” is defined as any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business that is prepared, owned, used, or retained by any public agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. (Gov. Code § 7920.530.) There are several general categories of documents or information that are permissively exempt from disclosure under the CPRA essentially due to the character of the information. The exempt information can be withheld by the public agency with custody of the information, but it also may be disclosed if it is shown that the public’s interest in disclosure outweighs the public’s interest in non-disclosure of the information. (CBS, Inc. v. Block (1986) 42 Cal.3d 646, at 652.). Additionally, some records are prohibited from disclosure or are specifically stated to not be public records. (see Gov. Code § 7924.110(a).) Under the CPRA, any examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of, CDI are not required to be disclosed, nor is any information received in confidence by CDI. (Gov. Code § 7929.000.)

California generally recognizes that public access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right.^[4] At the same time, the state recognizes that this right must be balanced against the right to privacy.^[5] The general right of access to public records may, therefore, be limited when records include sensitive information. The bill’s legislative findings on the need for limiting access to public records seem warranted in light of the fact that the CPRA already provides protections for confidential information received by CDI, and the stated need to protect consumers, avoid unfair competitive advantages or disadvantages, and protect proprietary information.

1. Civil penalties

This bill provides that failure to submit the required report under the Act subjects an admitted insurer to a civil penalty. The penalty is to be fixed by the Insurance Commissioner in an amount not to exceed $5,000 for each 30-day period that the insurer is not in compliance. If the failure to comply is willful, the civil penalty is to be fixed in an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each 30-day period that the insurer is not in compliance, but cannot exceed an aggregate amount of $100,000. The bill provides that an admitted insurer can appeal the penalty either through a court of competent jurisdiction or in a formal hearing under the Administrative Procedures Act. (Ins. Code § 12940; Gov. Code §§ 11500 et seq.) Both appeal procedures will provide adequate due process to an admitted insurer—notice and an opportunity to be heard. (Matthews v. Eldridge (1976) 424 U.S. 319.)

1. Statements in support

United Policyholders, a supporter of the bill, writes:

[…]SB 495 will improve on previous efforts to ameliorate one of the biggest pain points for homeowners who lose their homes and all their possessions in a wildfire: The onerous policy condition that compels them to go through the emotionally draining, time-consuming and absurd process of itemizing and valuing every single item they lost in order to collect the personal property insurance benefits owed to them. A primary reason it is so chronically painful and hard to comply with this condition is that it re-traumatizes people who are trying to heal. And where a homeowner has suffered a total loss and all their personal property is gone - there is a strong logical argument that they should be paid their full contents/personal property policy limits without having to comply with this bureaucratic and burdensome requirement.[…]

This bill will once and for all free people who have lost everything in a wildfire from the absurd obligation to compile exhaustive itemized lists—often hundreds of pages long, just to collect policy benefits they’ve paid for. SB 495 removes this burden and allows survivors to appropriately focus on getting rehoused and replacing their possessions by requiring insurers to pay 100% of personal property limits without an itemized inventory after a total loss in a declared emergency.

The bill also extends the deadline for submitting proof of loss to 180 days—with flexibility for further extensions—recognizing the realities of post-disaster life.

Additionally, we commend the bill's provision that gives the California Department of Insurance the authority to gather data on insurers' use of reinsurance, catastrophe modeling, and other wildfire-related risk tools. This data will help policymakers and regulators protect both consumers and the long-term stability of the state’s insurance market.

1. Statements in opposition

The American Property Casualty Insurance Association, the National Association of

Mutual Insurance Companies, the Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance Companies, and the Personal Insurance Federation of California write in opposition, stating they:

are opposed to SB 495 which would require insurers to pay 100% of a policy’s content coverage without and inventory and impose burdensome reporting requirements of confidential information on insurers.

SB 495 would require insurers to pay 100% of contents coverage without an inventory after their home is destroyed by wildfire. Additionally, this bill as outlined will give consumers additional time, at least 180 days, to provide proof of their loss to their insurance company following a declared state of emergency.

California residents are clearly concerned about the cost of living, and insurers have become constrained in their ability to provide coverage to homeowners because of outdated rate setting rules that will be improved through Commissioner Lara’s Sustainable Insurance Strategy (SIS). SB 495 would drastically increase the cost of insurance because it requires payments that are far in excess of what they actually lost in personal property. These large overpayments will show up in form of higher rates for all consumers. The bill will also create different payments between similarly situated consumers which is generally prohibited in insurance law.[…]

Under the provisions of SB 495, [similarly situated] policyholders could get vastly different contents coverage payments based on how their insurance companies determine contents coverage. People living next to each other in identical houses could get vastly different contents coverage.

The trades are opposed to SB 495 because it will make insurance significantly more expensive for millions of Californians at a time families are already struggling with the high cost of living, and it would result in serious inequities between similarly situated consumers.

SUPPORT

Ricardo Lara, Insurance Commissioner (sponsor)

Consumer Watchdog

Pacific Palisades Community Council

United Policyholders
16 individuals

OPPOSITION

American Property Casualty Insurance Association

National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies

Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance Companies

Personal Insurance Federation of California

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation: SB 616 (Rubio, 2025 establishes the Community Hardening Commission as an independent unit within the CDI to, among other things, develop new wildfire community hardening, as specified. SB 616 is currently pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Prior Legislation:

AB 844 (Gipson, Ch. 347, Stats. 2023) required CDI to implement specific data collections on the availability and affordability of insurance for heavy-duty trucks and truck fleets and made that information confidential, not subject to subpoena, or admissible in testimony in a civil proceeding, as provided.

AB 3012 (Wood, Ch. 258, Stats. 2020), among other provisions, required the insurer to pay at least 30% of the dwelling structure coverage, up to $250,000, without an inventory of the items if a loss resulted from a state of emergency and an insured filed a claim for lost or damaged contents of a home.

SB 894 (Dodd, Ch. 618, Stats. 2018) allowed a homeowner to use the full replacement value of other structures in a destroyed home to rebuild the insured structure without having to actually replace the destroyed other structures, and authorized a policyholder to claim an amount of contents coverage calculated as 30 percent of the limit of coverage for the insured dwelling without providing an inventory of the lost contents.

PRIOR VOTES:

Senate Insurance Committee (5 Ayes, 2 Noes)

**************

1. Governor’s Exec. Order No. N-4-25 (Jan. 12, 2025). ↑

2. Jesus Jiménez, L.A. Fires Death Toll Rises to 30 After Remains Are Found, L.A. Times, (Apr. 3, 2025), available at https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/03/us/la-fires-death-toll.html. ↑

3. Palisades and Eaton wildfires caused up to $53.8 billion in property damage, study finds, The Orange County Register, (Feb. 27, 2025), available at https://www.ocregister.com/2025/02/27/palisades-and-eaton-wildfires-caused-up-to-53-8-billion-in-property-damage-study-finds/. ↑

4. Cal. Const., art. I, § 3; Gov. Code, § 7921.000. ↑

5. Cal. Const., art. I, § 1. ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON INSURANCE

Senator Susan Rubio, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: SB 495 Hearing Date: April 23, 2025

SUBJECT: Insurance

DIGEST:

In the event of a covered total loss of a dwelling resulting from a state of emergency, requires insurers to offer 100 percent of the personal property policy coverage limit without an itemized claim from the policyholder. Extends to the deadline for a policyholder to provide the insurer with proof of loss from 60 to 180 days following the loss. Expands the Department of Insurance’s data collection authority and reporting responsibility to include information from certain insurers regarding reinsurance and use of catastrophe models.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires, when an insurer obtains reinsurance, that the insurer must communicate all the representations of the original insured, and also all the knowledge and information they possess, whether previously or subsequently acquired, which are material to the risk. The goal of such communication is to ensure that the reinsurer has relevant and necessary information to assess and manage the risk being transferred.
2. Requires the insured to provide the insurer a written proof of loss within 60 days following the loss, unless this timeframe is extended by the insurer.
3. Defines a “state of emergency” as the duly proclaimed existence of conditions of disaster or extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the state, caused by conditions such as air pollution, fire, flood, storm, epidemic, riot, drought, cyberterrorism, sudden and severe energy shortage, electromagnetic pulse attack, plant or animal infestation or disease, among other conditions.
4. States that in the event of a covered total loss of a primary dwelling resulting from a state of emergency, under a residential property insurance policy, the insurer shall offer a payment under the contents, also known as personal property, coverage in an amount no less than 30% of the policy limit of the covered dwelling structure, up to $250,000, without requiring the insured to file an itemized claim.

This bill:

1. Makes findings and declarations related to the state’s interest in understanding the trends in insurance markets and the reinsurance strategies and catastrophe models used by insurance companies, to expand the writing of insurance policies, and understand the systemic risk to the solvency of insurance companies that write policies in wildfire-distressed areas.
2. Requires that on or before March 1, 2026 and by every March 1 thereafter, admitted insurers with premiums from specified lines of $50,000,000 or more, must submit a report to the Insurance Commissioner, in a specified manner, on their reinsurance placement data and use of catastrophe models for the previous policy year. Reinsurance placement data can include the details of those policies, including the amount of coverage, the risks covered, and the terms of the agreement.
3. Specifies that such reports filed on or before March 1, 2026, shall include data from the latest available reinsurance treaty year. Subsequent reports must also include data available from the latest reinsurance treaty year when the report is due.
4. Stipulates that insurers must promptly respond to inquiries from the Insurance Commissioner or their representative regarding the report.
5. States that the Commissioner must annually post an aggregated report of this data, which does not identify specific insurers, on the Department of Insurance’s website.
6. Specifies that in the event of a loss relating to a state of emergency, an insurer shall not require the insured to provide proof of loss sooner than 180 days after the loss.
7. Requires that an insurer provide one or more additional extensions of six months for submission of proof of loss for good cause, if the insured, acting in good faith and with reasonable diligence, encounters a delay in approval for the reconstruction of the property beyond the control of the insured, including:
   • • • 1. Unavoidable permit delays
         2. Lack of necessary construction materials
         3. The unavailability of contractors to perform the necessary work
         4. The disability, injury, or incapacity of the insured
         5. The inability of the insured to access the insured property as a result of governmental action or because the insured property is located in an area that is exposed to hazardous materials posing a health risk
8. Stipulates that in the event of a covered total loss of a dwelling resulting from a state of emergency, insurers must offer 100 percent of the personal property policy coverage limit without requiring an itemized claim from the policyholder.

1. Makes findings stating that in order to protect consumers, avoid unfair competitive advantages or disadvantages, and protect proprietary information received by the state under the bill’s provisions, that information reported as such must be treated in a confidential manner.

Background

According to the author:

Under current law, a homeowner experiencing a total loss from a declared emergency may recover an advance payment of 30%, or up to $250,000, of the coverage limits of the insurance policy without an itemized claim. To receive the remainder of their policy payouts, homeowners are required to undergo the tedious and traumatizing task of creating an itemized list that includes the estimated value, age, and condition of every single item lost in the disaster. Even after policyholders complete a detailed inventory, many insurers only pay the depreciated value of these items unless the policyholder re-purchases and submits receipts for each and every item.

Due to the large scale of the January wildfires, many policyholders have been overwhelmed with the tasks of dealing with housing, family, employment, reconstruction, and other major adverse changes in their lives. Some insurance companies are requiring that policyholders complete the itemized inventory and submit proof of loss within 60 days of the damage or destruction of their homes. This has proven to be unrealistic for policyholders experiencing total loss in these wildfires. Unsafe and hazardous conditions prevented homeowners from accessing their property to survey damage for nearly a month after the wildfires.

SB 495 will expedite relief to victims of future disasters by removing the burdensome requirement to inventory home contents when filing insurance claims for coverage they have been paying for and provide more time for victims to submit proof of loss to their insurers.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 3012 (Wood, Chapter 258, Statutes of 2020): Among other provisions, required if a loss resulted from a state of emergency and an insured filed a claim for lost or damaged contents of a home, that the insurer pay at least 30% of the dwelling structure coverage limit, up to $250,000, without an inventory of the items.

SB 894 (Dodd and McGuire, Chapter 618, Statutes of 2018): Allowed a homeowner to use the full replacement value of other structures in a destroyed home to rebuild the insured structure without having to actually replace the other destroyed structures, and authorizes a policyholder to claim an amount of contents coverage calculated as 30% of the limit of coverage for the insured dwelling without providing an inventory of the lost contents.

Double Referral

Should this bill pass out of this committee, it will be heard in Senate Judiciary Committee, which will analyze the issues in this bill under its purview.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

Supporters state:

SB 495 will improve on previous efforts to ameliorate one of the biggest pain points for homeowners who lose their homes and all their possessions in a wildfire: The onerous policy condition that compels them to go through the emotionally draining, time-consuming and absurd process of itemizing and valuing every single item they lost in order to collect the personal property insurance benefits owed to them. Post-disaster home inventory lists typically take well over a year to complete, with survivors having to remember thousands of items and minutiae such as toothbrushes, to a child’s school supplies, to the contents of a kitchen drawers, etc.

This bill will once and for all free people who have lost everything in a wildfire from the absurd obligation to compile exhaustive itemized lists—often hundreds of pages long, just to collect policy benefits they’ve paid for. SB 495 removes this burden and allows survivors to appropriately focus on getting rehoused and replacing their possessions by requiring insurers to pay 100% of personal property limits without an itemized inventory after a total loss in a declared emergency.

The bill also extends the deadline for submitting proof of loss to 180 days—with flexibility for further extensions—recognizing the realities of post-disaster life. Additionally, we commend the bill's provision that gives the California Department of Insurance the authority to gather data on insurers' use of reinsurance, catastrophe modeling, and other wildfire-related risk tools. This data will help policymakers and regulators protect both consumers and the long-term stability of the state’s insurance market.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:

Opponents state:

California residents are clearly concerned about the cost of living, and insurers have become constrained in their ability to provide coverage to homeowners because of outdated rate setting rules that will be improved through Commissioner Lara’s Sustainable Insurance Strategy (SIS). SB 495 would drastically increase the cost of insurance because it requires payments that are far in excess of what they actually lost in personal property. These large overpayments will show up in form of higher rates for all consumers. The bill will also create different payments between similarly situated consumers which is generally prohibited in insurance law.

AB 3012 (2020) already addressed the issue SB 495 seeks to fix by requiring 30% of dwelling coverage up to $250,000. Under the provisions of AB 3012, all similarly situated policyholders receive the same amount of contents coverage. For example, two neighbors who both have Coverage A amounts of $1 million would receive $300,000 in contents coverage without having to do an inventory. This ensures equity for insureds and a fair, even competitive marketplace for insurers.

Under the provisions of SB 495, the same policyholders could get vastly different contents coverage payments based on how their insurance companies determine contents coverage. People living next to each other in identical houses could get vastly different contents coverage. The trades are opposed to SB 495 because it will make insurance significantly more expensive for millions of Californians at a time families are already struggling with the high cost of living, and it would result in serious inequities between similarly situated consumers.

SUPPORT:

California Department of Insurance (Sponsor)

Consumer Watchdog
United Policyholders

OPPOSITION:

American Property Casualty Insurance Association
National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies
Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance Companies
Personal Insurance Federation of California

-- END --