pull down to refresh
A little bit.
The blame should first go to the CA government that has made both housing and insurance artificially expensive (as well as pretty much everything else), as well as unjustly requiring home insurance in the first place.
As a general rule, though, there's nothing wrong with the sentiment that if you can't afford to live somewhere then you should live somewhere else. That's how the rest of us have to live.
Absolutely, no one should expect cheap insurance in a place like that. However, the state does things that make insurance more costly to provide and it is reasonable to think they should stop doing that.
It's also reasonable to think you should not have to have insurance. One of the core principles of a free society is personal responsibility. If someone wants to take on all the risk of living somewhere, that's their business.
The state doesn’t require home insurance. It’s the lender that requires it. Unless you own your house and you can decide not to buy home insurance.
Home insurance covers the home but not the land.
Thanks for the clarification. Are the lenders required by law to require it or are they just being prudent?
My guess is they are being prudent.
A common reason for deals falling out of escrow is inability to secure home insurance
The problem is the state insurance commission has to approve all rate increases above 8 percent. It’s impossible to operate under these conditions.
Is it wrong for me to say that if you cant afford the insurance, you should move to one of the other 49 states?