Robert Howell, 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: Robert Howell

Current job title: CEO of Exatron Inc.

Political party affiliation: Republican

Incumbent: No

Other political positions held: Santa Clara County Central Committee for the Republican Party (elected to two four-year terms, in 2020 and 2024)

City where you reside: San Jose

Campaign website or social media: electroberthowell.org

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

I’m running again because just as in 2022, California’s insurance system is failing the people it’s supposed to protect, and no one in Sacramento is doing anything about it. Families are doing everything right; they pay their premiums, they follow the rules, and when a disaster strikes, they find out their coverage is gone or delayed. The insurance industry is broken.

The insurance commissioner’s job, however, is pretty straightforward. It’s to enforce the law, review rates, and make sure insurance companies are actually serving the people of California. Right now, that’s not happening. The office has become reactive instead of proactive and severely lacks basic accountability and transparency.

The insurance commissioner should be the loudest voice for the people of California to call out our leaders in Sacramento. The only way to reduce the cost of all forms of insurance is to lower the risks and replacement costs for both the insurance industry and policyholders.

I have never worked for an insurance company. I’m a business owner and property owner who has seen how these failures affect real people. I’ve been on the receiving end and like most Californians, I’m fed up. I’m running to restore balance to this system so it works for Californians, instead of companies or our inflated bureaucracy.

As in 2022, I will not accept any campaign donations from insurance companies or agents.

Bottom line, the insurance commissioner should be a watchdog.

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.)

You shouldn’t have to choose between protecting people and having a market that actually works. We’re supposed to have both, and right now, we don’t have either.

Part of the problem is that we’ve made it too easy for companies to stay in the profitable areas and step away when things get difficult. If you’re going to do business in California, you should be part of the homeowners market too – including higher-risk areas. You don’t get to just cherry-pick the profitable, easy side of this.

At the same time, people are paying for coverage and then finding out the hard way what that actually means when they file a claim. When someone loses their home, they need a clear answer and a fair process, not a fight.

After the L.A. fires, we leaned too heavily on the FAIR Plan instead of treating it like what it is, which is a backup. The real focus should have been on getting people back into standard coverage and making it possible for insurers to write those policies again. Instead, a lot of families ended up paying more for less, and that’s not something you can call progress.

The CDI should be leading the charge to lower the risks of a disaster in the first place. In the second place, the CDI should propose cutting cumbersome regulations and championing new regulations to speed up and lower the costs to rebuild. I need to do all I can to get Sacramento to do its job.

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.)

To be clear, the FAIR plan was proposed only as a backup decades ago. What Sacramento is calling a sustainable strategy looks a lot more like asking families to pay more and hoping the rest works itself out. People are already dealing with rising premiums, and now they’re being told these growing increases are tied to “climate change” while their options are getting worse.

We were told this would bring insurers back into fire-prone areas. But so far, that piece has been more of an expectation than anything real. And expectations don’t help when thehomeowner can’t find coverage.

The bottom line is, if you’re forcing people to pay more right now, there should be something they can actually point to and say, “this is better.” For most families, especially those suffering from recent natural disasters, they cannot. They’re still being pushed onto the FAIR Plan or left trying to figure it out on their own.

If the goal of SIS was to help transition property owners off the FAIR Plan, is there any evidence that this is working?

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.)

First of all, I would require insurance companies’ financial claims to be made public and audited by a third party. If you live in a lower-risk area, you shouldn’t be forced to pay more because the system broke down somewhere else. That’s what people are frustrated about right now, and they have every reason to be.

What we’re dealing with didn’t come out of nowhere. This has been building for years. Poor oversight, delayed decisions, and a system that wasn’t being managed the way it should have been. Now we’re seeing the consequences, and families across the state are being asked to cover the cost.

And look, when a company the size of State Farm is in trouble, it’s going to affect the broader market. Nobody’s ignoring that, but the answer can’t just be spreading those costs to everyone and calling it a solution.

That might be the easiest thing to do in the moment, but it’s not fair, and it’s not sustainable. It makes California unaffordable, and people are already paying more and getting less out of their coverage.

The real focus should be on making sure we don’t end up here again. Stronger oversight, a more stable system, and holding people accountable before it turns into a crisis that everyone else has to pay for.

I am a firm believer in “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

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’m not against using catastrophe modeling, but I don’t think it should be used as a blank check to raise rates. Do we need to include 1906-size earthquakes?

The biggest issue is trust. These models are complicated, and most people have no idea how they work or what assumptions are being made. If you’re going to base someone’s premium on that, then there needs to be real transparency. Otherwise, you’re asking homeowners to accept higher costs based on something they can’t see or question.

I think modeling can be part of the process, but it shouldn’t be the thing driving everything. There still has to be oversight, and there still has to be common sense.

And just like everything else, it has to go both ways. If insurers are given more flexibility to use these models, then they should also be expected to stay in the market and write policies in the areas they’ve been pulling out of.

At the end of the day, tools like this can help, but only if they’re used responsibly. If it just turns into another way to justify higher rates without real accountability, then it’s not helping anyone.

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.)

If someone lives in a lower-risk area, they shouldn’t be on the hook for losses tied to risks they didn’t take on. That’s where a lot of the frustration is coming from right now.

The FAIR Plan was supposed to only be a backup plan, a last resort people have when there’s no other option. It wasn’t meant to keep growing like this or turn into something that more and more people are being forced into or asked to subsidize.

At a certain point, you start to lose confidence in the system. People are paying more, and it feels like the problem just keeps getting bigger instead of getting fixed.

The real answer is getting people out of the FAIR Plan and back into the regular market. That means making sure insurers are part of the solution and creating a system where they actually stay and write policies.

At what point do we ask the state of California to pay for mistakes made by California leadership? Why should we pay more for the state not doing all it can to prevent disasters?

Bottom line, the longer we rely on the FAIR Plan to carry this kind of weight, the more expensive it gets and the less fair it becomes for everyone.

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.)

California is one of the largest insurance markets in the world. Over the years, insurance companies have made billions of dollars from doing business in California. Insurance companies should expect losses.

I would require insurance companies to sell all their products everywhere in California. If you red-line a policy holder, I will red-line the insurance company.

The insurance companies will scream, but in the end are not going to leave one of the most profitable markets in the world, California.

Insurance companies do have the political firepower to get our leaders in Sacramento to finally start doing their job. Pass bills to provide resources for major improvements in fire protection. Reward and encourage people who do what is needed to protect their own properties from wildfires. Cut the red tape, provide for faster permitting and cut burdensome regulations to allow homeowners to rebuild quickly and at significantly lower costs.

On the other hand, it is not reasonable for the insurance companies to be held responsible for the cost of an entire community burning to the ground. These major disasters have their start in Sacramento, many years before the fire starts in your backyard. Our leaders can find billions of dollars for things like high-speed trains to nowhere, but not the dollars required to prevent these major disasters in the first place or to lower the costs to rebuild.

Maybe someone should ask Sacramento to cover the costs of state governance failures?

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.)

To be very clear, I would welcome the efforts of groups like Consumer Watchdog. Talking to some of the CDI staff, they are overworked and lack leadership. At the same time, California is in a deep financial crisis. Getting a bigger CDI budget is most likely not possible. For all we know, the CDI budget may be being cut. Having third-party groups investigate what can be improved can only be helpful. As Commissioner, it is up to me and members of the CDI staff to consider all good ideas from all inputs. And should a problem be pointed out by a third party, do all we can to correct the problem.

You have heard this from all politicians that they will always be “transparent”. I am no politician; I will open the CDI negotiations and insurance company books for all to see.

Our current Commissioner has never met a rate increase he didn’t like.

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.)

If you have a clean record, your rates should not be going up like this. That’s what a lot of drivers don’t understand, and they have every right to be frustrated.

First off, we need to make sure safe drivers are actually being treated like safe drivers. That means enforcing strong “good-driver” discounts and making sure insurers aren’t quietlyspreading costs onto people who have no accidents or violations.

Additionally, repair costs are out of control, fraud is still happening, and the answer from Sacramento seems to be just to raise rates and send the bill to everyone else. I would do all I can to expand the fraud investigation staff within the CDI. Insurance fraud costs everyone, insurance companies and policyholders both. We need to prosecute every fraud case to thefullest extent of the law.

And we need stronger oversight when rates are reviewed. If a company wants to raise rates, they have to clearly show why, in clear language that anyone can understand. It shouldn’t come at the expense of drivers who have done everything right.

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

Most people don’t know what this office does until something goes wrong. That’s a problem.

Right now, a lot of these decisions feel like they’re happening behind closed doors. People hear about rate increases or policy changes after the fact, but they don’t really understand how those decisions were made or who’s being held accountable.

That must be fixed. This office should be explaining what it’s doing in plain English, not buried in reports or technical language that most people will never read. If rates are going up, people should know why. If an insurer is being held accountable, people should hear about it. It shouldn’t take a crisis for the public to get a clear answer and basic transparency.

This should feel like an office that’s actually paying attention and willing to explain itself, not an unreachable bureaucracy. The truth is, people just want to know someone’s looking out for them and being straight with them. Right now, people know they’re in the dark and that the system is broken.

This will be one of my number one jobs when in office. I need to ask the CDI staff this question. What they think we should be doing to allow better public understanding of the CDI. I need to just listen, make some commonsense suggestions, and then come up with a team plan. Like any group of people, the CDI just needs a leader.

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

If I had a hidden talent, it would be my ability to motivate and keep my employees happy. If your employees are happy, then they will do all they can to make my customers happy. I would treat the people working for the CDI in the same way as I have always treated my own employees. As far as I can tell, the working people of the CDI have been rudderless for the last seven years with no real leader. No one has their back. Having a boss running around the world on expensive (no public accounting) “fact-finding missions” is no way to run a business. The office of Insurance Commissioner deserves a leader who understands the meaning of hard work, the ability to bring out the very best of the CDI team, and, most of all, listens to the needs of CDI customers, the people of the state of California.

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