Keith Davis, 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: Keith W Davis

Current job title: Insurance Agent

Age: 40

Political party affiliation: American Independent

Incumbent: No

Other political positions held: None

City where you reside: Winchester

Campaign website or social media: Gokeithdavis.com

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

I want to become the Insurance Commissioner because over the last four years, I’ve seen a broken system fail Californians. I’ve seen record-high premiums placed on hardworking people with no accountability and no proactivity to try to address the root cause of the issues. I’ve seen the state’s overall fire risk score rise in every area, and I’ve seen many claims mishandled or denied without just cause or reasoning.

The system in place right now is broken, and California needs someone who is willing to fight to make it right. The Insurance Commissioner’s job is to regulate the insurance industry and protect the consumers’ laws and rights. The commissioner needs to be transparent with the people of California and be willing to help create a system that benefits the people, and that’s what I intend to do in that role.

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.)

Wildfire risk is the No. 1 issue with California insurance. It has gotten out of hand. What I would do is emphasize risk mitigation, which would encourage and reward homeowners who are proactive in protecting their homes, while also allowing carriers to offer insurance with a greater level of confidence and a lower level of feared risk. This, in turn, would influence carriers to reopen or to come back to the state, and that in turn would make the market more competitive and ultimately benefit consumers.

In regard to the LA fires, there was a clear opportunity to really stand up for the people, insurance-wise, and we didn’t fully do that. To reform the system moving forward, I would emphasize fire discounts, I wouldn’t base rates on what has happened but on future climate data, and I would have created a state catastrophe fund that would help ensure victims of tragedies are protected and can receive assistance immediately without delays.

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 think in theory, it sounds like this strategy means well. But it also sounds like it’s just giving the insurance companies more justification to raise premiums and consumers pay higher prices. As an agent of nearly 10 years, I’ve seen the state-run insurance carrier, the California Fair Plan, actually gives consumers a great option to keep premiums down while still having coverage. Instead of going away from the CFP, I would look to modernize and strengthen it. Have it include more coverage and make sure that the claim process is more swift and reliable than it is, but telling companies they can charge more in certain areas doesn’t necessarily benefit consumers. The priority needs to be making sure insurance is affordable and reliable, and strengthening the CFP while the market stabilizes is the right way to go.

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.)

This absolutely is not fair to consumers who don’t live in fire-prone areas. I do understand that insurance, in totality, is a shared risk model, but to give huge increases to consumers who are in the lower risk areas just seems unreasonable. This is why we need a state catastrophe fund that can help, not only consumers, but also the carriers, while keeping a heavy burden off those in low-risk areas.

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.)

I believe California can use catastrophe modeling, but not for rate increases. It should actually be used for the opposite, for rate decreases. If we are aware of a risk, be it fire, weather, or other hazards, ahead of time, then we can be proactive in handling the situation. Too often, we are reactive instead of being proactive. If we know an area is prone to having a wind event or a high fire, let’s make sure that area has no hazardous brush anywhere. Let’s make sure we reduce the electricity risk in the area. Let’s invest in infrastructure that could help prevent disasters. Let’s be Proactive in minimizing the risk, which then should enable us to lower the premium.

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.)

Every month, I write CFP policies, which I’m not sure many of my fellow candidates have ever done or can say they do now. I myself also have a CFP policy on my own home. The premiums that I am seeing are not outrageous. If the current CFP model includes recovery amounts from the $1 billion loss assessment, then I would have to say it is fair under the present circumstances. The beautiful thing about the CFP is that it allows consumers to pick and choose which coverages they need rather than bundling unnecessary extras. So if there’s an increase in premium due to the $1 billion loss assessment, many consumers may not feel the impact from it because there’s not a wide range of extra coverages that drive up the cost.

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.)

State Farm, Allstate, and all the other major carriers have the right to do as they please. If they want to cancel or leave the marketplace, so be it. The real problem isn’t them leaving; the real problem is what and why they are leaving and what we can do to fix it so that they will want to stay in California. We need to shift the conversation.

I’m yet to hear about someone sitting down with the CEOs of these companies and just having a conversation that’s based on factors and strategies that can help reduce risk. All we ever hear about is rate increases. Collaboration, and not just regulation, is the key to helping these companies have confidence in California again.

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 do not support any measures that limit transparency. Even if the rate increase is minimal, it can still have strong effects on consumers, and I believe the people deserve to have a say in this matter. There needs to be accountability in insurance, especially right now, as the insurance market seems unstable. This isn’t the time to put systems in place that will hinder the people from challenging rate increases. I don’t like it.

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.)

I have pondered this situation for many months now, because auto insurance is almost unaffordable, and people are driving without it because of the price. I would collaborate with auto insurers to see how we can reward those who have no accidents or tickets. If there is a way we can give them a percentage back of premiums they paid, that could influence other drivers to drive better and, in turn, lower the driving risk altogether. Lower auto insurance is a bit tougher because there are many factors that you have no control over that can contribute to an accident. But if we can lower the risk, even by 1% each year, we can start to see a lower premium model than we have now. I would even be open to having a committee explore how the state can possibly run a state program for flawless drivers.

That’s a bit of a stretch, and a bold idea, but the conversation won’t hurt.

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

There are many things that the Insurance Commission Office can do to help taxpayers understand the work, but one idea that I have heavily emphasized this campaign period is education. We need taxpayers to be more educated on what insurance is, how they can reduce their premiums, and how they can do risk mitigation. Many taxpayers don’t know what permissive liability is on an auto policy. They don’t know what loss of use is on a home policy. They don’t know that auto premiums are based on the mileage driven each year. If we can spend more time educating taxpayers, they can understand insurance and the office of insurance better.

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

The hidden talent that I have is that I am willing to do whatever it takes to get the people of California in a better position, insurance-wise. Even if it means I have to take a step back for the people to take a step forward. I love my state and believe in the people of this state, and my talent is making sure they are good.

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