New California Insurance Laws 2025–2026: What Every Policyholder Needs to Know

The California Legislature responded to the state’s worsening insurance crisis with a wave of new legislation in 2025 and 2026. These laws touch virtually every aspect of property insurance — from how quickly disaster victims get paid, to who can be non-renewed, to how much building code upgrade coverage a policy must carry. Some of these laws took effect immediately; others phase in over the next year. Taken together, they represent the most significant expansion of policyholder protections in California in a generation.

This article explains each major bill, what it does, and — most importantly — what it means in practical terms for California property owners navigating the insurance market.

SB 495: The Eliminate The List Act — Faster Contents Payments After Disasters

Senate Bill 495, known as the “Eliminate The List Act,” is one of the most impactful policyholder protections in recent memory. After a total loss in a state-declared disaster, insurers must now automatically pay 60% of the personal property (contents) coverage limit — up to $350,000— without requiring the policyholder to produce a detailed room-by-room inventory. The previous law required only 30%, capped at $250,000.

Equally important, SB 495 establishes a minimum 100-day proof-of-loss period. Insurers cannot demand a sworn proof of loss or a detailed contents inventory for at least 100 days after the loss. This gives disaster victims time to focus on immediate survival needs — finding temporary housing, replacing essential items, and stabilizing their families — before having to begin the exhausting process of cataloging every possession that was destroyed.

For a detailed breakdown of how this law works in practice, including how it interacts with depreciation and recoverable holdback, see the full article on SB 495 and the contents payment rule.

SB 547: Non-Renewal Protections Extended to Commercial, HOA, Condo, and Nonprofit Policies

California already had protections requiring insurers to give advance notice before non-renewing residential homeowner policies, particularly after a declared disaster. However, those protections had a significant gap: they applied primarily to personal lines residential policies, leaving commercial properties, homeowners associations (HOAs), condominium associations, and nonprofit organizations without equivalent safeguards.

Senate Bill 547 closes that gap. The bill extends the same non-renewal protections to commercial policies, HOA and condominium association master policies, and nonprofit organization policies. This means:

• Advance notice requirements. Insurers must provide adequate advance notice before non-renewing these policy types, giving policyholders time to find replacement coverage.
• Post-disaster non-renewal moratoriums. The same disaster-related non-renewal restrictions that apply to homeowner policies now extend to these categories, preventing insurers from mass non-renewing commercial and association policies in wildfire-affected areas immediately after a disaster.
• Disclosure obligations. Insurers must provide a written explanation for the non-renewal, which is essential for policyholders seeking alternative coverage or challenging the decision.

This is particularly significant for HOAs and condominium associations, where a non-renewal of the master insurance policy can affect dozens or hundreds of unit owners simultaneously. For more on non-renewal rights generally, see the guide to non-renewal and cancellation protections in California.

AB 226: FAIR Plan Bonding Authority

The California FAIR Plan — the insurer of last resort for property owners who cannot obtain coverage through the private market — has grown dramatically. As of early 2026, it covers well over 400,000 policies with aggregate exposure exceeding $300 billion. The FAIR Plan’s financial stability is critical: if it cannot pay claims after a major disaster, the shortfall would be assessed against every admitted insurer in California, which could destabilize the entire market.

Assembly Bill 226 addresses this by expanding the FAIR Plan’s bonding authority. The bill authorizes the FAIR Plan to issue revenue bonds and other debt instruments to raise capital, providing it with additional financial tools to ensure claim-paying capacity after catastrophic events. This is not a blank check — the bonds must be structured to be repaid from FAIR Plan premiums and assessments — but it gives the Plan access to capital markets rather than relying solely on after-the-fact assessments on other insurers.

AB 888: The California Safe Homes Act — Grants for Fire-Safe Roofs

One of the most cost-effective ways to protect a home from wildfire is to install a fire-resistant roof. Class A fire-rated roofing materials can dramatically reduce the likelihood of a structure igniting from airborne embers — the primary cause of home loss during wildfires. However, a full roof replacement costs tens of thousands of dollars, putting it out of reach for many homeowners, particularly in lower-income communities that are often the most fire-vulnerable.

Assembly Bill 888, the California Safe Homes Act, establishes a grant program to help homeowners install fire-safe roofing. The program provides direct financial assistance to qualified homeowners for the cost of replacing existing roofs with Class A fire-rated materials. Key features include:

• Income-based eligibility. The program prioritizes homeowners who demonstrate financial need, ensuring that the grants reach those who cannot otherwise afford the upgrade.
• Geographic targeting.Homes in high and very high fire hazard severity zones receive priority, directing resources where the risk — and the potential benefit — is greatest.
• Community-level impact. By hardening individual homes, the program reduces risk for entire neighborhoods. A single un-hardened structure in an otherwise fire-resistant neighborhood can serve as an ignition point for surrounding homes.

For homeowners who have been non-renewed due to wildfire risk, investing in fire-safe roofing and other mitigation measures can be a pathway back to the voluntary insurance market. Some carriers now offer premium discounts or restored eligibility for homes that meet specific wildfire hardening standards.

Building Code Upgrade Coverage: New 10% Minimum

Starting with policies issued or renewed after July 1, 2026, California law requires every homeowner insurance policy to include building code upgrade coverage of at least 10% of the dwelling limit. This is a mandatory minimum — insurers may offer more, but they cannot offer less.

Building code upgrade coverage (also called “ordinance or law” coverage) pays the additional cost of bringing a damaged home into compliance with current building codes when those codes have changed since the home was originally built. This is critically important because building codes in California have become significantly more stringent over time, particularly regarding:

• Seismic requirements. Updated foundation, framing, and structural connection standards.
• Wildfire hardening. Fire-resistant roofing, ember-resistant vents, tempered glass, and defensible space requirements under Chapter 7A of the California Building Code.
• Energy efficiency. Title 24 energy code requirements including insulation, HVAC, and in many cases solar panel mandates for new construction.
• ADA and accessibility. Updated accessibility standards that may apply when substantial reconstruction triggers compliance requirements.

Without adequate code upgrade coverage, a policyholder can receive the full dwelling limit and still face a significant shortfall because code-compliant reconstruction costs more than simply replacing what was there before. For a home insured at $500,000, the new minimum guarantees at least $50,000 in code upgrade coverage. Whether that is sufficient depends on the age of the home and the specific code changes in the local jurisdiction.

For a deeper analysis of how building code upgrade coverage works and common disputes, see the full article on building code upgrade coverage.

Pending Legislation: Bills That Could Reshape Insurance in California

The following bills have advanced through committee and are actively moving through the legislature. None are yet signed into law, and their final form may change. But their scope signals a legislative intent to fundamentally restructure the insurer-policyholder relationship in California.

SB 876: The Disaster Recovery Reform Act

Status:Recommended “do pass as amended” by Senate Insurance Committee (May 14, 2026); currently on the Senate Appropriations suspense file. Not yet enacted.

SB 876 would impose new requirements on insurers to plan for and respond to large-scale disasters. The bill has two primary components: proactive planning requirements and enhanced penalty provisions.

Insurer disaster recovery plans. SB 876 would require every insurer writing property insurance in California to develop, maintain, and file a disaster recovery plan with the California Department of Insurance. Plans would have to address:

• Staffing surge capacity. How the insurer would scale up its claims handling workforce after a large-scale event, including the use of independent adjusters and catastrophe response teams.
• Communication protocols. How the insurer would reach affected policyholders, including provisions for situations where normal communication infrastructure (mail, phone, internet) may be disrupted.
• Advance payment procedures. How the insurer would expedite initial payments and emergency funds to disaster-affected policyholders.
• Claims handling timelines. Specific commitments for inspection timelines, initial contact, and payment benchmarks during catastrophe events.

Doubled penalties during declared emergencies.SB 876 would double the administrative penalties that CDI can impose on insurers for violations of California insurance laws during a declared state of emergency. Under existing law, CDI already has authority to fine insurers for unfair claims settlement practices. SB 876 would increase the financial consequences during the specific window when policyholders are most vulnerable and insurer misconduct is most harmful — counteracting the cost-cutting pressure carriers face when handling tens of thousands of simultaneous claims after a disaster.

SB 877: Fair Claims Practices and Transparency Act

Author: Senator Sasha Renee Perez (D-Pasadena)
Status: Passed Senate Insurance Committee (April 2026); now in Senate Appropriations

SB 877 targets the opacity of the claims adjustment process. If enacted, it would require insurers to:

• Disclose to claimants every version of every claims-related document within 15 calendar days of creating it.
• Include what changed between versions, who approved the change, and why.
• Disclose the full name and title of every person who created, ordered, reviewed, or approved a document.

This directly addresses the “black box” problem — where the insurer produces a number, the policyholder disagrees, and there is no way to see how the number was derived, who approved it, or what changed between the initial estimate and the final offer. When an insurer’s estimate drops between versions, the policyholder would know who made the change and what justification was given.

SB 878: Insurance Payment Accountability Act

Author: Senator Sasha Renee Perez
Status: Passed Senate (as amended), April 22, 2026; now in Senate Appropriations

This bill gives California’s claims handling deadlines real financial consequences:

• Codifies existing regulatory deadlines for insurer response, acceptance/denial, and payment.
• Imposes a 20% annual penalty on insurers who miss deadlines.
• Penalty includes the overdue claim amount plus 20% annual interest plus reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees.

California’s fair claims settlement regulations already impose deadlines — 15 days to acknowledge a claim, 40 days to accept or deny, 30 days to pay after acceptance. But the consequences for violation are diffuse: a CDI complaint, a potential bad faith lawsuit, regulatory action that may or may not materialize. SB 878 would attach a direct, automatic financial penalty. An insurer that sits on your claim for six months would owe the claim amount plus 10% in interest penalties plus your attorney’s fees.

AB 1680: Make It FAIR Act

Author: Assembly Member Lisa Calderon (Chair, Assembly Insurance Committee)
Sponsor: Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara
Status: Passed Assembly Insurance Committee (14-1), April 2026; now in Assembly Appropriations

The FAIR Plan currently offers bare-bones fire coverage. Policyholders who need water damage coverage, personal injury liability, theft protection, or other standard homeowner’s coverages must purchase a separate “difference in conditions” (DIC) policy — often at significant additional cost and from a different carrier. AB 1680 would require the FAIR Plan to offer comprehensive homeowner’s coverage comparable to standard HO-3 policies.

Additional provisions include climate risk assessments, public access to Governing Committee meetings, annual reporting requirements, and implementation of reforms identified in CDI’s Report of Examination, which found the FAIR Plan failed to comply with 17 recommendations regarding financial condition, corporate governance, and consumer protections.

Over 450,000 California homeowners are now on the FAIR Plan — many involuntarily, after being nonrenewed by their standard carrier. Requiring them to buy a second policy to get coverage that standard market policyholders receive in a single policy is an additional financial burden on families who are already paying more for less. For more on the FAIR Plan’s current coverage and limitations, see the full article on FAIR Plan claims.

SB 1301: Nonrenewal Guardrails to Preserve Coverage Act

Author: Senator Ben Allen
Status: Passed Senate Insurance Committee (April 2026); now in Senate Appropriations
Would take effect: July 1, 2027

• 180-day nonrenewal notice— up from the current 75 days for most homeowner’s policies.
• Insurers must provide detailed, specific explanations for nonrenewals, referencing the specific underwriting guideline provision justifying the decision.
• Must disclose all information used in the nonrenewal decision.
• Prohibits nonrenewal or cancellation for merely inquiring about filing a claim or for filing claims within the deductible amount.

The current 75-day nonrenewal notice is often insufficient for homeowners in fire-prone areas to find replacement coverage — particularly when multiple carriers are simultaneously pulling out of the same regions. Six months gives families meaningful time to shop alternatives, harden their homes, or pursue regulatory relief. The prohibition on retaliation for claim inquiries addresses a real and documented practice: policyholders who call to ask whether something is covered, without filing a claim, and then receive a nonrenewal notice. For more on your rights when your carrier drops you, see the full article on non-renewal and cancellation.

SB 1076: Insurance Coverage for Fire-Safe Homes Act (Failed)

Author: Senator Sasha Renee Perez
Co-sponsors: Eaton Fire Survivors Network, Consumer Watchdog
Status:Died in Senate Insurance Committee, April 23, 2026 — one vote short

SB 1076 would have prohibited admitted insurers from refusing to offer, sell, or renew residential property insurance for homes meeting minimum home hardening and wildfire mitigation standards. Violators would have faced a five-year ban from both home and auto insurance markets in California.

This was the fourth time since 2020that legislation requiring insurers to cover fire-hardened homes has failed. The concept represents the most direct legislative approach to the availability crisis — if you harden your home, you get coverage. Period. Its repeated failure, despite overwhelming public support, illustrates the limits of legislative reform when industry opposition is concentrated and sustained. The concept will return.

AB 597: Public Adjuster Fee Caps During Disasters

Author: Assembly Member John Harabedian
Status: Held in committee (status uncertain)

AB 597 would cap Public Adjuster fees at 15% of insurance payouts for claims arising from declared disasters and prohibit Public Adjuster solicitation while emergency conditions are present. It also includes a right to rescind contracts solicited during prohibited periods. For more on this bill, see the full article on AB 597 and Public Adjuster regulations.

Regulatory Actions (Not Legislation)

Legislation is only part of the picture. CDI’s regulatory actions are reshaping the market in parallel:

• Forward-looking catastrophe models:CDI completed evaluation of the first forward-looking wildfire catastrophe models, allowing insurers to factor in climate change when setting rates — but requiring them to also credit mitigation efforts.
• Proposition 103 intervenor process reforms: CDI announced reforms to enhance transparency and accountability in rate reviews.
• Public catastrophe model:SB 429 funds the development of the nation’s first publicly available wildfire catastrophe model, giving consumers and regulators an independent baseline for challenging rate increases.

The Bigger Picture: What This Legislative Wave Means

These laws did not emerge in a vacuum. They are a direct response to the unprecedented challenges facing California property owners: the withdrawal of major carriers from the state, the explosive growth of the FAIR Plan, skyrocketing premiums, and the devastating wildfire seasons that have made California the most difficult property insurance market in the country.

The legislative strategy has multiple prongs:

• Immediate relief.SB 495 puts money in disaster victims’ hands faster, and the code upgrade coverage minimum ensures policies carry a meaningful floor of protection.
• Market stability.AB 226 strengthens the FAIR Plan’s financial structure, while SB 547 prevents the kind of mass non-renewals that destabilize communities.
• Prevention. AB 888 funds the physical hardening of homes, which reduces future losses and improves insurability.
• Accountability (pending). SB 876 would require insurers to plan for disasters and double the consequences for misconduct during emergencies.

The question that remains is whether these legislative protections, combined with the California Department of Insurance’s Sustainable Insurance Strategy on the regulatory side, will be enough to stabilize the market and bring carriers back to California in meaningful numbers.

Key Takeaways

• SB 495 requires 60% of contents coverage (up to $350,000) paid automatically after a disaster total loss, with at least 100 days before an inventory can be required.
• SB 547extends non-renewal protections to commercial, HOA, condo, and nonprofit policies — categories that were previously unprotected.
• AB 226 gives the FAIR Plan new bonding authority to strengthen its ability to pay claims after catastrophic events.
• AB 888 creates a grant program for fire-safe roofs, prioritizing high-risk areas and lower-income homeowners.
• SB 876 (pending) would require insurer disaster recovery plans and double penalties for claims handling violations during declared emergencies.
• Building code upgrade coverage of at least 10% of the dwelling limit is mandatory on all homeowner policies issued or renewed after July 1, 2026.
• SB 877 (pending) would require insurers to disclose every version of every claims document within 15 days, including who approved changes and why.
• SB 878(pending) would impose a 20% annual penalty plus attorney’s fees on insurers who miss claims handling deadlines.
• AB 1680(pending) would require the FAIR Plan to offer comprehensive homeowner’s coverage comparable to standard HO-3 policies.
• SB 1301 (pending) would extend nonrenewal notice to 180 days and require specific written justifications.
• Policyholders should review their current policies to understand how these laws affect their existing coverage and what changes to expect at renewal.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Insurance policies and applicable law vary by state and by policy form. Consult with a licensed professional regarding your specific situation.

Written by Leland Coontz III, Licensed Public Adjuster, CA License #2B53445.