Sean Lee, 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: Sean Lee

Current job title: President and CEO

Age: 58

Political party affiliation: Republican

Incumbent: No

Other political positions held: None

City where you reside: Irvine

Campaign website or social media: SeanLee4California.com

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

California is in the middle of an insurance crisis, and no one in this race is more qualified to fix it than I am.

I am a scientist and a financial services executive. I hold a Ph.D. in physical oceanography, completed my post-doctoral research at JPL/Caltech, and have spent two and a half decades in the private sector analyzing risk, pricing models and complex financial systems. I understand how insurance markets really work, not just as a policy observer, but as someone who lived inside the data. In addition, I have quite extensive experience in helping thousands of families to plan their protection and retirement by sitting at their kitchen tables.

The California Department of Insurance is the largest consumer financial protection agency in the nation. The Commissioner oversees a $340 billion industry, licenses insurers, enforces consumer protections, approves rate changes and ensures that companies remain solvent and fair. It is, at its core, a job that demands technical expertise, regulatory discipline, and an unwavering commitment to the public interest.

Right now, that job is not being done well. Major insurers are fleeing the state. The FAIR Plan (our insurer of last resort) has grown by over 400% in some Southern California counties. Homeowners are being dropped. Premiums are exploding. Families are left unprotected.

I am running because this problem is solvable, but only with the right person leading the solution.

I am not a politician but a problem solver.

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.)

California cannot have consumer protection without a functioning insurance market. But right now, we have neither.

The core problem is that Proposition 103 locked California into a backward-looking rate approval system. Insurers are required to base rates on historical loss data, but wildfire risk is not historical; instead, it is accelerating. The result is predictable: insurers cannot price risk accurately, so they exit the market entirely. Consumers are left with the FAIR Plan, which was never designed to be anyone’s primary insurer.

The Sustainable Insurance Strategy under Commissioner Lara was a step in the right direction: allowing forward-looking catastrophe models in rate-setting, but the implementation has been too slow, too opaque, and too tied to political pressure. Insurers are still waiting. Consumers are still unprotected.

What I would do differently: First, fast-track the adoption of transparent, independently audited catastrophe modeling, not as a favor to insurers, but as a requirement for market stability. Second, tie any rate approval to mandatory coverage commitments in wildfire-affected ZIP codes. Insurers want pricing flexibility — they earn it by staying in the market. Third, create a real-time public risk dashboard so homeowners understand their mitigation options and the direct link between home hardening and premium reduction.

Consumer protection means keeping insurers in California — not chasing them out.

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.)

The Sustainable Insurance Strategy is directionally correct — but structurally incomplete. I support the concept. I do not support the execution.

The core logic is sound: if California continues to prohibit forward-looking risk pricing, insurers will keep leaving, the FAIR Plan will keep growing, and homeowners in fire-prone areas will be left with inferior, expensive coverage. Allowing catastrophe modeling in rate-setting is not a gift to the insurance industry — it is a prerequisite for keeping any market alive.

But SIS, as implemented, has a critical accountability gap. Rate increases are being approved, yet the reciprocal commitment — insurers writing more policies in high-risk areas — lacks enforceable benchmarks. There is no publicly verified timeline, no county-level coverage targets, and no real penalty mechanism for non-compliance. The exchange is lopsided right now: consumers absorb the cost increases immediately, while insurer obligations remain vague and deferred.

As Commissioner, I would strengthen SIS with three additions: mandatory, audited coverage expansion milestones tied directly to each approved rate increase; a public compliance scorecard updated quarterly; and a rate-rollback mechanism if insurers fail to meet their commitments.

The goal is right. The accountability infrastructure is not there yet. I will build it.

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.)

No! It is not fair. And more importantly, it was preventable.

Asking a homeowner in Sacramento, Fresno, or San Diego to subsidize the insolvency of State Farm or the FAIR Plan’s catastrophic exposure in Altadena is not a risk-sharing mechanism. It is a policy failure being passed down to consumers who had nothing to do with the decisions that created this crisis.

The fundamental problem is that California spent a decade avoiding hard choices. Regulators blocked actuarially sound rate increases in high-risk areas. Insurers stayed too long, underpriced their risk, and then retreated all at once. The FAIR Plan absorbed hundreds of thousands of policies it was never designed to hold. When the wildfires hit, the bill came due — and it was handed to everyone.

That is not insurance. That is a hidden tax on responsible homeowners.

Going forward, the principle must be: risk-based pricing, transparently applied, with geographic precision. Homeowners in low-risk areas should not be cross-subsidizing high-risk zones indefinitely. Where public policy decisions — zoning, building codes, fire mitigation — have created concentrated risk, the cost of those decisions should be addressed through targeted public programs, not blanket premium increases.

Consumers deserve an Insurance Commissioner who tells them the truth about how this happened — and prevents it from happening again.

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! As a scientist, I will say plainly what others in this race will not: catastrophe modeling is not the enemy of consumers. Refusing to use it is.

I hold a Ph.D. and spent years at TAMU and JPL/Caltech working with complex physical models — atmospheric systems, fluid dynamics, ocean satellite data simulation. I understand what these models do and, critically, what they require to be credible: transparent methodology, independent auditing, and public accountability. Catastrophe models are not magic. They are structured, probabilistic estimates of future loss — and they are far more accurate than backward-looking historical averages for a state whose risk profile is changing every fire season.

California’s Sustainable Insurance Strategy already permits the use of forward-looking catastrophe models in rate-setting. This was the right call. The question is not whether to use them — it is how to use them responsibly.

My standard as Commissioner: any catastrophe model used to justify a rate increase must be submitted for independent third-party audit, results published in plain language for consumers, and tied to verifiable insurer commitments to maintain coverage in affected areas. Rate increases without coverage obligations are not acceptable.

The alternative — continuing to base rates on historical data while wildfire risk accelerates — does not protect consumers. It guarantees that insurers keep leaving, and that the FAIR Plan becomes the only option left.

Science-based policy is consumer protection. I will enforce both.

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.)

No! It is not fair. And it exposes a structural flaw that has been ignored for too long.

The FAIR Plan was created as a safety net of last resort — a temporary bridge for homeowners who genuinely cannot obtain coverage in the private market. It was never designed to hold hundreds of thousands of policies, never capitalized to absorb a $1 billion loss event, and never meant to function as a de facto primary insurer for entire communities.

When the FAIR Plan issues a $1 billion assessment and passes that cost to every private insurance policyholder in California — including people in San Jose, Bakersfield, or Riverside who have nothing to do with Altadena — that is not risk-sharing. That is a system-wide bailout triggered by a decade of regulatory avoidance.

The honest answer is that this assessment exists because regulators spent years blocking actuarially sound rate increases in high-risk zones, which drove private insurers out, which forced those homeowners onto the FAIR Plan, which then lacked the reserves to cover a major loss. Every step of that chain was predictable. None of it was inevitable.

As Commissioner, I will work to restore the FAIR Plan to its intended role — a true last resort, not a mass-market insurer — by creating the conditions for private insurers to re-enter the market at sustainable, transparently justified rates.

California consumers should not keep paying for policy failures. That stops with me.

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.)

In a free market, yes — insurers have the right to exit. But in a regulated market like California’s, that right comes with responsibilities. And the question isn’t whether they can leave. It’s why they’re leaving — and what we do about it.

State Farm and Allstate did not leave California because they wanted to. They left because they could not price risk accurately under a regulatory framework that forced them to use outdated historical data. When you cannot charge a rate that reflects actual exposure, you have two choices: lose money or exit. They exited. That is rational business behavior — and it is the predictable consequence of bad policy.

So no, I don’t think the answer is to simply let them leave and declare victory. That approach leaves millions of Californians with no private market options, pushes everyone onto the FAIR Plan, and ultimately costs consumers more — not less.

At the same time, I will not beg insurers to return without conditions. Any insurer that wants to operate in California must meet coverage commitments, maintain adequate reserves, and justify rate changes with transparent, auditable data. Re-entry is welcome. Re-entry without accountability is not.

The goal is a competitive private market with real consumer protections — not a race to the bottom, and not a government-run monopoly by default.

California needs insurers. Insurers need California. My job is to make that relationship work — on terms that are fair to both.

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 oppose it. And I think it sends exactly the wrong signal at exactly the wrong moment.

Let me be direct: this regulation is not about streamlining government. It is about insulating rate increases from public scrutiny. Eliminating compensation for intervenor groups like Consumer Watchdog does not make the process more efficient — it makes it less contested. Those are not the same thing.

California’s rate approval process is adversarial by design — and that is a feature, not a bug. Independent advocacy groups provide technical scrutiny that the Department of Insurance itself often cannot or does not provide. They catch errors. They challenge assumptions. They represent the interests of policyholders who have no other seat at the table. Removing their ability to participate effectively is a gift to the insurance industry dressed up as regulatory modernization.

A 7% threshold is not a minor technicality. For a homeowner already paying $4,000 a year in premiums, a 6.9% increase is a $276 annual hit — approved without meaningful public challenge.

I will not run the Department of Insurance as a backroom for industry deals. Every significant rate increase — regardless of percentage — will be subject to transparent review, public comment, and accountable justification.

Transparency is not a burden. It is the job.

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 a driver has no accidents, no serious violations, and a consistent record of responsible behavior, that driver should not be treated like a rolling subsidy for everyone else’s risk. Right now, too many Californians are paying more not because they became riskier, but because the system became more expensive and less disciplined.

My approach is straightforward: reward low-risk behavior clearly, transparently, and automatically.

First, I would require insurers to provide meaningful, standardized good-driver discounts that are easy for consumers to compare across companies. Safe drivers should not have to guess whether they are receiving the full benefit of their record.

Second, I would increase scrutiny of non-driving factors that inflate premiums for people who have done nothing wrong. If a rate increase is driven by repair inflation, vehicle technology, or supply-chain costs, insurers must prove that those costs are being allocated fairly — not simply passed through in the bluntest possible way.

Third, I would push for more consumer-friendly pricing options: annual safe-driving reviews, usage-based programs with strong privacy protections, and streamlined approval for defensive driving discounts.

The principle is simple: if you are a safe driver, your premium should reflect your behavior — not just the system’s dysfunction.

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

Most taxpayers do not understand the Department of Insurance because government too often communicates in filings, press releases, and technical jargon instead of plain English. That needs to change.

If I am Commissioner, the public will not have to guess what this office does, why a rate increase was approved, or whether an insurer is meeting its obligations. I will make that information visible, understandable, and current.

First, I would create a public dashboard that shows, in plain language, the most important things taxpayers actually care about: pending rate requests, approved increases, consumer complaints, market withdrawals, FAIR Plan growth, and enforcement actions against insurers.

Second, every major decision from the Department should come with a short public explanation: what happened, why it matters, who it affects, and what protections are in place. If a decision cannot be explained clearly to the public, it has not been explained well enough.

Third, I would hold regular public briefings — not staged political events, but substantive updates where Californians can see the data, hear the reasoning, and judge performance for themselves.

Public trust does not come from slogans. It comes from transparency, clarity, and accountability repeated over time.

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

One hidden talent I have is the ability to translate complex ideas into something people can easily understand. Whether it’s explaining a financial concept, a technical model, or a policy issue, I enjoy breaking things down, so they are practical and useful in everyday life.

That likely comes from my background — starting as a scientist, where clarity and precision matter, and then working in finance and insurance, where decisions have real-world consequences for families and businesses. Over time, I’ve learned that the most important ideas are often the ones people can actually understand and act on.

I also enjoy teaching and mentoring. Helping others grasp something that once seemed complicated is both rewarding and, I think, an important skill in leadership.

In many ways, this “hidden talent” is about communication — making complicated systems more transparent and accessible. And that’s something I believe is especially important in areas like insurance, where people are often dealing with difficult and stressful situations.

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