California landlords — like single-family homeowners — are facing higher insurance premiums, and they’re passing along some of those costs to their tenants.
Many insurance companies have stopped writing policies in the state because of increased wildfire risks, but that’s not the only reason. They say in the case of any catastrophe, the potential costs of replacing any residential or commercial property, from labor to material costs, is just plain more expensive now.
Even owners of properties in areas that are not at high risk for wildfires have had their policies canceled because their buildings may need repairs or improvements. Landlords are having to find other insurers, or having to turn to the ever-growing and more expensive FAIR Plan, the insurance industry-run plan that is mandated under California law to be the insurer of last resort.
This is where the insurance crisis could worsen the housing crisis, according to some experts. Increased insurance costs for properties other than single-family homes are starting to affect the rental market — in a state where almost half of residents are renters — and could compound the state’s housing problems, they say.
Josh Hoover, an insurance broker in the Los Angeles area, handles mostly commercial accounts and said “it’s almost impossible” to find coverage for any large structure. In late 2022, Allstate said it would stop writing new property insurance in the state, including commercial policies.
State Farm, the biggest insurer in the state, recently canceled policies for tens of thousands of homes, residential community associations, business owners and commercial apartment properties.
“Even buildings made in the ‘80s are now considered old, which is ridiculous,” Hoover said. “Most carriers want everything updated in the last 30 years. They want a new roof, electrical redone, plumbing redone — they want you to have copper pipes.”
For landlords, ‘death by a thousand cuts’
Earlier this year, Farmers canceled the policy on a 33-unit apartment building in San Bernardino that was built in the 1960s, said its co-owner, Uwe Karbenk. Karbenk found an out-of-state insurer instead of going with the more expensive FAIR Plan, but his premium has still increased by $28,000 to more than $41,000 a year.
Combined with state laws that limit how much he is allowed to raise the rent each year — 5% plus inflation, or up to 10% in some cases, with possibly other rent-control measures on the way — Karbenk said being a landlord in California is “a little bit like death by a thousand cuts.” He added that if his profit margin continues to shrink, he would rather invest in something else besides real estate.
“One of these measures, it’s not a big deal,” Karbenk said. “But over the years, it’s really difficult for mom-and-pops.”
Mike Placido and his wife are definitely a mom-and-pop. They own two rental properties, a four-unit building in San Gabriel and a duplex in Alhambra. He said they bought the properties as a way to supplement their retirement income when the time comes in a few years.
When State Farm canceled the policy on their San Gabriel property, Placido got a quote from the FAIR Plan for $8,600, much higher than their old $2,600 premium. Instead, he was able to cobble together three different policies from a Florida-based insurer to get the coverage the old policy provided for $6,500, a 150% increase. So he said he plans to raise rents in January.
“It’s not like I’m some land baron,” Placido said. “I’ll pass along as much as I possibly can, as much as the market can bear, and I’ll shoulder the rest. I have no choice.”
Yet another worry for renters
About 44% of Californians are renters, according to the U.S. Census. The median monthly rent in the state is $2,850, a third higher than the national figure, according to online real estate marketer Zillow. About 30% of the state’s renters are considered severely cost-burdened, meaning they spend at least half of their income on housing, according to an analysis by the Public Policy Institute of California. Now their rents could rise to even more burdensome levels.
Shanti Singh, legislative director for statewide renters’ rights organization Tenants Together, said “it’s still kind of an unknown how common it is” that tenants’ rents are rising along with insurance costs, partly because not all landlords say why they’re raising rents.
“It depends on the landlords,” Singh said. “Some are transparent; a lot of them aren’t.”
Any significant rent increases have not yet shown up in Zillow’s data, which shows California’s median rent is actually down about $100 compared with last year, though it has climbed higher since the beginning of the year.
In the Bay Area, two renters who didn’t want to be named out of fear of retaliation from their landlord said the rents at their live-work complex jumped earlier this year, and the reason was spelled out to them in an email that had “insurance costs” in the subject line.
Singh said she fears things will only get worse for renters as the effects of climate change, such as wildfires, continue to weigh on the affordability of insurance, and in turn, housing.
“Tenants are going to have the least recourse,” Singh said. They “always end up bearing a disproportionate brunt of what they can afford.”
Housing and climate change
Singh and others who deal with California’s lack of affordable housing expressed concern about whether certain parts of the state will eventually be uninhabitable and uninsurable — whichever comes first.
Sarah Karlinsky, director of research at the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley, said the lack of enough housing within already developed cities means more building “at the fringe of regions, in places that are more dangerous,” also known as the wildland urban interface, or the WUI, in wildfire speak.
“If we don’t want to continue down this road, we have to fundamentally rethink our development patterns,” Karlinsky added.
Laurie Johnson, an urban planner and former chief catastrophe response and resiliency officer for the California Earthquake Authority, pointed out that some property owners in the state who own their buildings and have no mortgages might choose not to insure their properties because of the rising costs. That’s worrisome, she said.
“It feels like we want to keep our multifamily stock insured and don’t want to take the risk of losing it,” Johnson said. Hoover, the insurance broker, agreed and said he has had some clients tell him they plan to forgo insurance.
Johnson added that just as jurisdictions have been requiring seismic retrofitting in case of earthquakes, protection against fires and other catastrophes — and the ability to replace whatever might be lost — is vital: “You would be displacing so many people.”
“Tenants are going to have the least recourse.”
Shanti Singh, legislative director for Tenants Together
The growing risks of climate change make it more important than ever for renters to have their own insurance, said Emily Rogan, senior program officer for United Policyholders, a consumer advocacy group.
Renters insurance would cover the costs for tenants to stay “somewhere else as you figure out where to live in case of a severe weather event,” Rogan said.
Effects on commercial properties and businesses
Small businesses that rent their space will be affected by their landlords’ rising premiums, too.
John Reed owns a mixed-use commercial property in Oakhurst, outside Yosemite — an area that has seen its share of fires in the past several years. Last year, his fire insurance cost about $2,800, but Berkshire Hathaway canceled his policy. He got three different quotes from the FAIR Plan, with the highest being $24,000. Then, he found a plan from Lloyd’s of London for about $14,000.
Reed said he will have to pass on his increased costs to his six tenants. “As a landlord, I can’t hit them with the whole burden all at once,” he said. “If I’m able to afford it, I will try to spread that out over a two- or three-year period.”
California’s insurance commissioner, Ricardo Lara, has unveiled a multi-part plan to address the state’s insurance woes, mainly focused on wildfires. For example, insurers will be allowed to use catastrophe models if they agree to write policies in certain areas of the state. But Insurance Department spokesperson Michael Soller pointed out that Lara also recently announced a deal with the FAIR Plan that creates a high-value commercial coverage option.
“The reforms will have broad benefits for the availability of insurance,” Soller said.
Levi Sumagaysay is a reporter with CalMatters.


baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
why does your life suck?
because you continuously do dumb things and vote for clueless people because they look like you
2024 will take the cake
and you will be worse off in 2028 than you were in 2016, and let’s face it, your life suck pretty badly in 2016
baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
Why does this Cal Matters story on insurance rates ascribe wild fires to Climate Change, when another reprinted story from Cal Matters from only four days ago (8/9/24) specifically says 95 percent of California wild fires have human causes?
Why reprint Cal Matters if it’s going to casually lie about “Climate Change”?
It has become routine now for the media to make bogus indicative statements that various things are due to or being caused by climate change, or they say climate change is causing or doing all manner of things, totally made up activist nonsense functioning as a form of propaganda. It’s more of today’s activist “journalism.”
—
Meanwhile, everyone can see the diminishing quality of driving and what that may do someday as well to insurance for vehicle ownership, while so many already go without insurance when they drive. (Or licenses, or for some, identification, too)
This is an important and eye-opening piece. The connection between rising insurance costs and California’s housing crisis doesn’t get nearly enough attention. It’s alarming how quickly climate-related risks are rippling through every layer of the housing market — from insurers to landlords, and ultimately to renters who already face affordability challenges. While policy adjustments may help stabilize coverage, it’s clear that long-term solutions will also require stronger climate resilience planning, smarter development patterns, and more equitable cost-sharing to prevent renters from bearing the brunt of these systemic issues.
Here’s a **data-informed look at whether rents in Santa Clara County, California are likely to increase enough to cover rising property insurance costs — and what market forces might limit or allow that:
1. Insurance Costs Are Rising Significantly
Property and multifamily insurance premiums in California have increased sharply in recent years: Multifamily property insurance premiums in parts of Santa Clara County have reportedly risen from $600–$1,000 per unit five years ago to roughly $2,500–$3,000 today. This is a major increase in one of landlords’ operating costs. The broader California insurance market has seen big rate increases as wildfire and other risks rise. State Farm got approval for rate hikes (e.g., ~38% on rental homes after June 2025), reflecting industry pressures. California FAIR Plan premiums (insurer of last resort) vary widely, and landlords’ policies averaged just under $2,000 statewide — but can be far higher in high-risk areas. Conclusion: Insurance expenses for rental property owners have risen materially and are likely to continue upward pressure on total operating costs.
2. Economic Research Suggests Limited Pass-Through to Rents A Federal Reserve research note specifically studied how rising property insurance affects apartment rents nationwide: Insurance costs have increased sharply (about +75% from 2019 to 2024 in multifamily buildings). Landlords do not fully pass these higher insurance costs through to new asking rents — that is, rent changes don’t closely track insurance cost increases empirically. When landlords raise rent, revenue tends to rise with insurance costs, but the relationship is weak, suggesting landlords bear a significant share of the expense. The study estimated rents have risen by only about $7–$12 per month on average due to insurance cost increases since 2019 — a small fraction of typical rent.
Interpretation: Empirical data suggests that landlords can pass some of their cost increases onto rents, but not fully and not line-for-line. Tenants are sensitive to competitive rents, and landlords in tight markets may lose occupancy if they raise too aggressively.
3. Local Rent Levels Remain High and Still Rising Even before recent insurance cost shifts: Typical asking rents in the San Jose–Sunnyvale–Santa Clara MSA were among the highest in the Bay Area (e.g., ~$3,065/month for multifamily in 2024). Recent rent reports show year-over-year increases continuing into 2025, with rents still rising (e.g., about +2.5% in late 2025).
Conclusion: Strong demand and limited housing supply in Santa Clara County are supporting elevated and slowly rising rents.
4. But Rent Increase Caps Limit How Much Owners Can Charge, California law limits how much landlords can raise rents annually in many units: Under AB 1482 (the Tenant Protection Act), most units are capped at the lesser of 5% plus CPI or 10% per year. This cap applies even if insurance or other costs rise much faster — limiting landlords’ ability to pass through all higher expenses.
Implication: In Santa Clara County, landlords cannot raise rents arbitrarily to cover costs; legislative caps legally constrain increases.
5. Market Sensitivity and Competition Also Matter Empirical economic principles show that rent increases are bounded by market demand: If a landlord increases rent too much relative to nearby units, vacancies rise and revenue can fall. Tenants in competitive rental markets can often move to similar lower-cost units if rents escalate steeply. This implies a ceiling on how much cost increases can be passed on through rent.
🧠 Overall Analysis: What Likely Happens in Santa Clara County
✅ Pressure to Raise Rents
Rising insurance costs do create financial pressure on property owners.
In a high-demand rental market like Santa Clara County, landlords may attempt to raise rents modestly to offset costs.
⚠ Limits on Full Pass-Through
Empirical research suggests only a fraction of insurance increases is typically passed through to rents.
Legal caps (AB 1482) restrict annual rent increases — sometimes below what would be needed to cover rapidly rising insurance and other costs.
Market competition further constrains how much landlords can increase without losing tenants.
📊 Net Outcome
It is unlikely rents will fully “meet” all increased insurance costs in the near term. Instead:
✔ Rents will continue to rise gradually due to overall demand.
✔ Landlords will absorb some cost increases rather than pass them fully to tenants.
✔ Legal limits and competitive pressures will slow how quickly rents can adjust.
📌 Bottom Line
Rents in Santa Clara County will likely continue rising overall, but they are unlikely to rise enough solely to cover all increased property insurance costs in a direct pass-through fashion.
Market conditions and high demand support rent increases.
Empirical evidence shows insurance cost pass-through to rents is modest.
Legal caps and competition limit how much landlords can raise rents.
If you’d like, I can also model estimated increases in rent needed to offset projected insurance cost changes, or explain how local rent control laws intersect with rising operating costs in more detail.
This comment is on an article posted in August 2024.