Regulators: Ill-fated map didn't affect insurance

SALEM - State regulators say it's a coincidence some home insurance policies were revoked or became more expensive after the rollout of Oregon's ill-fated wildfire risk map.

Insurance decisions that adversely affected landowners were made independently, since none of the companies operating in the state report the map affecting their actions, according to state insurance regulators.

The allegations arose from the "great deal of misinformation about the state wildfire risk map and its connection to insurance," said Andrew Stolfi, insurance commissioner with the state's Department of Consumer and Business Services.

In early summer, a statewide map identified 80,000 properties facing high or extreme fire risk in the "wildland-urban interface," which meant they were subject to looming defensible space regulations.

An outcry from landowners convinced the state Department of Forestry to withdraw the wildfire risk map roughly a month later, vowing to come up with a revised version after reviewing data and communicating with the public.

Some critics claimed the map caused them to lose home insurance policies or pay heftier premiums, but a state government survey of insurance companies has failed to substantiate those complaints.

Not a single insurer reported raising rates or refusing to renew policies due to the map, according to a formal data call to which companies were required to respond by law.

"Insurers are in the risk identification business and have for years used their own tools, including their own risk maps, in their decision-making," Stolfi told lawmakers during a recent legislative hearing.

Any cost hikes or policy cancelations were based on private and unrelated conclusions about rising fire dangers, which simply occurred around the same time, he said.

"We're seeing our insurers respond to that risk," Stolfi said.

Though it's believable insurers truly weren't influenced by the map, that actually highlights the effort's shortcomings, said Dave Hunnicutt, president of the Oregon Property Owners Association, which advocates for landowners.

"If I were the state, I wouldn't be bragging about it," he said. "There's no reason for the insurance companies to rely on the state map."

State regulators should take a page from insurance companies and develop a map that accurately assesses fire risks, Hunnicutt said.

The withdrawn map erroneously lumped properties together even if they were managed differently, he said.

"It was based on computer modeling and never ground-truthed," Hunnicutt said.

Homes that had been hardened against fire and surrounded by defensible space were classified at the same risk level as neighboring properties overgrown with flammable vegetation, he said.

Though landowners could appeal their classification, they could only argue the state had misapplied its own criteria to the area, he said. Efforts to make a specific property more resistant to fire weren't considered relevant.

"Even if you cut all the trees and paved the whole site, you'd never get out of the extreme classification," Hunnicutt said.

Insurance companies, on the other hand, "actually have skin in the game," so they analyze the risks more precisely, he said.

Hunnicutt sits on the state's wildfire programs advisory council and has recommended that regulators emulate the approach insurance companies take.

"If you're going to regulate how people use their property, that regulation should be based on accurate data," he said.

He also believes the council's proceedings should be better publicized and taken on the road, to engage with the views of community members.

"It seems like nobody knows who we are or what we do," Hunnicutt said. "There are a lot of these issues we could help the public understand."