Ben Allen, California insurance commissioner candidate, 2026 primary election questionnaire

Ahead of the June primary election, the Southern California News Group compiled a list of questions to pose to the candidates who wish to represent you. You can find the full questionnaire below. Questionnaires may have been edited for spelling, grammar, length and, in some instances, to remove hate speech and offensive language.

Name: Ben Allen

Current job title: California State Senator

Age: 48

Political party affiliation: Democratic

Incumbent: No

Other political positions held: California State Senator, 2014-Present. Santa Monica-Malibu Board of Education, 2008-2014 (President from 2012-2013)

City where you reside: Santa Monica

Campaign website or social media: benallenca.com

Why do you want to become the insurance commissioner? What does a commissioner do? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

My north star has always been clear: put the public interest first. After years of leadership on environmental policy and political ethics, transparency, and accountability, that mission came into sharper focus for me when the Palisades fire erupted in communities I have represented for more than a decade in the State Senate.

For me, the Palisades and Eaton fires underscored what we have known for years: our world is changing beneath our feet. I am running for Insurance Commissioner because California needs urgent, practical leadership to make our insurance system adaptable to the realities of a changing world if we want to keep California affordable and livable.

California’s elected Insurance Commissioner has one core mission – consumer protection.

The Commissioner oversees the California Department of Insurance, the consumer protection agency for the nation’s largest insurance marketplace that safeguards all of the state’s consumers by fairly regulating the insurance industry. The Department enforces the insurance laws of California and has authority over how insurers and licensees conduct business in the state.

The role is directly impacted by our changing climate, and directly impacts affordability as a whole within California. It is pivotal that the leader in this role has experience fighting back against the insurance industry and fighting for consumers – work that I have done for years in the State Senate, and I would continue to do as Insurance Commissioner.

When it comes to wildfire risks, how would you balance consumer protection with a functioning, competitive market? What would you have done differently to reform homeowners’ insurance following efforts to help L.A. rebuild from the wildfires? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

We can’t ignore wildfire risk, and we also can’t leave homeowners to face it alone. Families are doing everything right and still facing higher premiums or losing coverage. That’s not acceptable. We need both strong consumer protection and a market that actually works.

Right now, too many Californians are being pushed onto the FAIR Plan. We saw that in the Palisades, entire communities are losing coverage, and now the system is under real strain. That’s not a sustainable safety net for consumers.

My focus is on making sure people have access to reliable, affordable coverage they can count on. That means modernizing how we manage risk, while keeping strong protections in place. I support carefully allowing forward-looking tools and faster rate reviews so insurers stay in the market, but only with clear guardrails: transparency, accountability, and real commitments to continue serving high-risk communities. Affordability has to be front and center.

We should target help to the people who need it most, through subsidies, tax credits, and real discounts for wildfire hardening. If you take steps to protect your home or your community invests in resilience, your insurance should reflect that. After the Los Angeles wildfires, I would have moved faster to support recovery while helping communities rebuild safer, strengthen wildfire protections, and make our neighborhoods more fire safe over time. My goal is simple: make sure Californians can get coverage, afford it, and rely on it when they need it most.

The state’s Department of Insurance says it is holding insurers accountable with its new “sustainable insurance strategy.” SIS allows insurance companies to increase rates based on the growing threat of climate change, passing on to their customers costs for insuring high-risk homes. In exchange, insurance companies are expected to write more polices in fire-prone parts of the state, where they’ve ended coverage for hundreds of thousands of homeowners over the past decade. The goal of SIS is to help transition property owners off the FAIR Plan. Tell us why you do — or don’t — support this strategy. (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

I support the goal behind the Sustainable Insurance Strategy: getting more insurers back into high-risk areas and moving people off the FAIR Plan. That’s essential for stability. But whether it succeeds will come down to execution and accountability.

Californians are already paying more, so they need to see real results. If insurers are given more flexibility to reflect future risk, there must be clear, enforceable commitments to write and renew policies in the communities that have been hardest hit. This cannot be a one-sided deal where rates go up, but coverage doesn’t come back.

Consumer protection has to remain central. That means full transparency around the models and assumptions driving rates, strong oversight to prevent unfair pricing, and faster, more efficient rate review so decisions don’t drag on for months or years.

We also need to pair this with a real focus on affordability and risk reduction. Homeowners who invest in wildfire hardening should see meaningful savings, and the state should help support those upgrades. At the same time, we need to make our communities more fire safe, so risk comes down over time — not just premiums going up.

The FAIR Plan should be a safety net, not the default. If SIS is implemented with strong guardrails and real accountability, it can help us get there. If not, we risk asking consumers to pay more without fixing the underlying problem.

State Farm teetered on insolvency in the state after the L.A. wildfires. Everyone’s homeowners’ insurance policies rose this past year due to the consumer bailout of State Farm and the FAIR Plan, both of which sought huge rate increases. Is this fair to consumers who don’t live in fire-prone areas? Tell us why or why not. (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

I understand why this feels unfair to many Californians. Families who don’t live in high-risk areas are being asked to absorb higher costs, and that raises real concerns about equity. We saw this clearly after the Palisades fire. When the FAIR Plan was pushed to the brink, the costs didn’t stay in one community — they were spread across the system, and ultimately, all Californians are paying. That’s not a sustainable or transparent way to manage risk. At the same time, insurance does rely on spreading risk. Wildfires don’t just impact one neighborhood — they affect the stability of the entire market. When a major insurer pulls back or the FAIR Plan becomes overextended, it drives up costs and reduces coverage options statewide.

The issue is not whether risk is shared — it’s whether it’s done fairly and responsibly. We need stronger accountability so that if insurers receive rate increases or support, they are required to continue writing and renewing policies in California. We also need to reduce risk at its source by investing in wildfire mitigation and making our communities more fire safe.

Finally, affordability should be targeted. Broad increases that hit everyone equally aren’t the answer — we should focus relief on the households most affected. If we get that balance right, we can protect consumers without shifting hidden costs onto families across the state.

Catastrophe modeling is a computer-based process that simulates thousands of potential natural or man-made disasters to estimate potential financial losses. Do you believe California could utilize catastrophe modeling that could lead to rate increases for homeowners? Why or why not? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

Yes, but only with strong guardrails to protect consumers. The reality is that wildfire risk is changing rapidly, and relying only on backward-looking data hasn’t kept up. That has contributed to insurers pulling back from the market and more Californians being pushed onto the FAIR Plan. Responsible use of catastrophe modeling can help create a more accurate picture of risk and support a more stable, competitive market.

But this cannot be a blank check for higher rates. California’s system is built on Proposition 103, which I strongly support. It requires transparency, public oversight, and that rates be justified and fair. Any use of catastrophe models must operate within those protections. That’s also why I supported SB 529 to create a public catastrophe model — so we have an independent benchmark to hold private models accountable. Regulators and the public should be able to understand how rates are being set and ensure they reflect real risk, not excessive assumptions.

Just as important, if insurers are allowed to use forward-looking models, they need to make real commitments to continue writing and renewing policies in high-risk communities. Consumers should not be asked to pay more without seeing improved access to coverage.

Finally, this must be paired with affordability and risk reduction. Homeowners who invest in wildfire hardening and communities that become more fire safe should see meaningful savings. Used responsibly, catastrophe modeling can be part of the solution, but only if it strengthens consumer protection, not weakens it.

The California FAIR Plan is the state’s insurer of last resort. Is it fair for the plan to charge people to recover losses on a $1 billion assessment to pay for L.A. fire claims, even when these same people weren’t living in the wildfire areas? Please explain why or why not. (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

I understand why this feels unfair. People who don’t live in high-risk areas are being asked to help cover losses from disasters they didn’t directly experience. That’s a real concern, especially as costs continue to rise. But this situation also highlights a deeper problem. The FAIR Plan is designed to be a safety net of last resort — not a system so large that its failures ripple across the entire state. When too many homeowners are pushed onto the FAIR Plan, as we saw after the Los Angeles fires, the risk doesn’t stay contained. It spreads across the broader insurance system, and ultimately, all Californians end up paying. That’s not sustainable, and it’s not how the system is supposed to work.

The focus should be on preventing this kind of outcome in the first place. We need a stronger, more stable private insurance market so fewer people are forced onto the FAIR Plan. We also need to reduce wildfire risk by making our communities more fire safe, which will lower losses over time. At the same time, there must be accountability. If costs are being shared broadly, there should be clear expectations on insurers to continue writing coverage in California and on regulators to ensure the FAIR Plan is managed responsibly. So while risk-sharing is part of insurance, the current situation shows we need to fix the system — so Californians aren’t repeatedly asked to backstop it.

Shouldn’t major insurers like State Farm and Allstate be permitted to cancel policies and leave the marketplace? Why not just let them leave? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

Insurance companies are private businesses, but they also play a unique role in our economy. Homeowners insurance isn’t optional — you need it to get a mortgage and protect your home. So when major insurers pull out of the market, it’s not just a business decision — it affects millions of families and the stability of entire communities. If we simply let insurers leave without any guardrails, the result is exactly what we’re seeing: fewer choices, higher prices, and more Californians pushed onto the FAIR Plan. That’s not a functioning market.

At the same time, we can’t ignore the reality that wildfire risk is increasing. If insurers are expected to stay, the system has to work. That means allowing responsible, transparent pricing and modernizing regulation so companies can manage risk — while maintaining strong consumer protections under Proposition 103.

The right approach is balance and accountability. If insurers want to operate in California and benefit from one of the largest insurance markets in the world, they need to be part of the solution  —continuing to write and renew policies, including in higher-risk areas. And in return, the state must provide a clear, stable regulatory framework that reflects today’s risks. We shouldn’t be in a position where insurers are fleeing, or where consumers are left without options. The goal is a market where companies stay, compete, and serve Californians — and where consumers can actually get and afford coverage.

As of March, Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara is moving forward with finalizing new regulations to limit public oversight and transparency in insurance rate increases under 7%. A finalized rule effectively curtails public challenges to insurance rate increases by denying compensation to groups like Consumer Watchdog and other advocacy organizations. What do you think of this plan? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

I have real concerns with this approach. Proposition 103 was built on transparency, public participation, and accountability — and those protections have saved Californians billions over time. Weakening that framework, even for smaller rate increases, risks undermining trust and tilting the process away from consumers.

At the same time, I understand the need to make the system work better. Rate reviews can take too long, and delays create uncertainty for both consumers and insurers. We should absolutely be looking for ways to streamline the process and make decisions more timely. But speed cannot come at the expense of oversight. If changes are made, they should preserve meaningful opportunities for independent review and public input — especially when those voices have historically played a key role in holding the system accountable. Any streamlined process should still ensure that rates are justified, transparent, and consistent with the consumer protections voters put in place under Proposition 103.

The goal should be both: a process that is efficient and one that Californians can trust. If we get that balance right, we can modernize the system without weakening the safeguards that protect consumers from unjustified rate increases.

Car insurance rates are skyrocketing in California, with rates jumping over 30% since 2022, driven by expensive vehicles, complex repairs and new safety requirements. What could you do to contain auto insurance costs when a driver has no accidents? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

Safe drivers should not be seeing the kinds of increases we’re seeing today. If you have a clean record, your rates should reflect that.

First, we need to fully enforce Proposition 103, which requires that the primary factors in auto insurance pricing are driving safety, miles driven, and years of experience — not just broad cost trends. Good drivers should not be subsidizing higher-risk behavior.

Second, we need more transparency and accountability in rate setting. If insurers are seeking increases, they need to clearly justify them, and regulators must ensure those increases are fair and not excessive.

Finally, we should take on the underlying cost drivers. Repairs have become much more expensive due to advanced vehicle technology and supply chain issues. We should promote cost-effective repairs, expand access to affordable parts and labor, and crack down on fraud and excessive billing. This is about fairness. If you’re doing the right thing behind the wheel, your insurance should reflect it.

How do you think taxpayers could better understand the work of this office? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

For most Californians, the Department of Insurance is something they only think about when something goes wrong — when a claim is denied, a premium spikes, or coverage disappears. We need to do a much better job making the work of this office visible, understandable, and relevant to people’s everyday lives.

First, that means transparency. Rate decisions, enforcement actions, and consumer complaints data should be easy to find, easy to understand, and explained in plain English — not buried in technical filings. Second, we should modernize how we communicate. The Department should provide clear, real-time updates during crises like wildfires, along with practical guidance on claims, coverage, and consumer rights. People shouldn’t have to hire an expert to understand their insurance.

Third, we need stronger outreach. That means partnering with local governments, community groups, and consumer organizations to meet people where they are—especially in high-risk areas—and help them understand their options.

Finally, accountability should be front and center. Californians should be able to see not just what decisions are made, but why — and how those decisions are protecting consumers and stabilizing the market. This office plays a critical role in people’s financial security. My goal is to make sure Californians understand that — and know it’s working for them.

What’s a hidden talent you have? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

Accents, geography/travel/history trivia, I think I can name the U.S. presidents in order, modest karaoke skills, and occasionally impressive soccer goal-scoring.

©2026 MediaNews Group, Inc. Visit ocregister.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.