Insurance Hour

When it comes to public policy, few things move quickly — especially in California. But every once in a while, a bill emerges that cuts through political gridlock, unites opposing interests, and makes its way through Sacramento with surprising speed.

That's exactly what's happening with Assembly Bill 2743 (AB 2743), introduced by Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco (D–Downey). The bill seeks to preserve fair and sustainable insurance standards for California's growing peer-to-peer car-sharing industry, preventing unintended insurance hikes that could have driven innovation out of the state.

In a recent episode of Insurance Hour, host Karl Susman caught up with Assemblymember Pacheco to discuss how her bill made it through the Assembly and into the Senate — and why bipartisan support has been key to its success.

As the episode began, Susman congratulated Pacheco for how far her bill had come.

"You were saying that currently it's gone through the Assembly — big thumbs up, right?" he said. "So now it's in the Senate, going through their committees. That's where it's sitting right now."

"That is correct," Pacheco confirmed. "It's already gone through two different committees on the Senate side, and it's received bipartisan support."

That phrase — bipartisan support — is rare in Sacramento, where most bills split along party lines. Yet AB 2743 managed to gain traction among both Democrats and Republicans because it's rooted in fairness, consumer protection, and economic sense.

"A lot of senators, like the Assembly members, want to keep this business here in California," Pacheco said. "They see the importance of the bill."

To recap, AB 2743 fixes a looming problem in state law that could have drastically raised insurance requirements for car-sharing platforms like Turo and Getaround.

Under current law, these platforms already carry coverage three times higher than standard personal auto policies. But a change set for January 2025, tied to a prior bill (SB 1107), would push those limits even higher — an unintended consequence that could make operating in California financially unviable.

"This bill keeps financial responsibility limits stable," Pacheco said in earlier discussions. "It prevents an unnecessary increase that w ...

California is home to innovation — from the tech hubs of Silicon Valley to the rideshare revolutions of Uber and Lyft. Now, a new frontier is reshaping the way people think about car ownership and transportation: peer-to-peer car sharing.

Through apps like Turo and Getaround, everyday drivers can rent out their personal vehicles to others, transforming idle cars into income-generating assets. It's a modern twist on the sharing economy — flexible, community-driven, and efficient.

But like any new model, it comes with complex insurance questions. Who's liable if something goes wrong? What kind of coverage is required? And how do existing laws — written long before this technology existed — keep up?

These are exactly the questions addressed in Assembly Bill 2743 (AB 2743), introduced by Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco (D–Downey). In a recent interview on Insurance Hour with host Karl Susman, Pacheco unpacked what car sharing insurance really means, why her bill matters, and how it protects both innovation and consumers.

Pacheco began by breaking down the core concept in plain terms:

"Traditionally, we all have insurance for our own vehicles," she said. "Now, with apps like Turo, I can rent out my vehicle to someone else. But when I do that, I need an additional insurance policy through the app."

In California, peer-to-peer car sharing is distinct from ride-sharing (like Uber or Lyft). Instead of hiring a driver, the renter becomes the driver. The platform facilitates the transaction and provides insurance coverage during the rental period.

This results in three layers of insurance coverage:

1. The vehicle owner's personal auto insurance, which covers regular use.

2. The driver's own insurance, if applicable.

3. The platform's policy, which kicks in when the car is rented out through the app.

"It's mandatory to get insurance through the app," Pacheco noted. "That coverage is already three times higher than a standard personal auto policy."

This system ensures that all parties — the owner, the renter, and the public — are protected if an accident occurs.

California's relationship with innovation has always been a complicated one. The state that birthed Silicon Valley and the gig economy is also home to some of the nation's toughest regulations — often creating tension between new ideas and old frameworks. One of the most recent examples of this is peer-to-peer car sharing, a booming model that lets everyday Californians rent out their personal vehicles to others through mobile platforms like Turo and Getaround.

But a new law scheduled to take effect in January 2025 could have unintentionally crushed this emerging industry under the weight of steep insurance requirements. Recognizing the problem, Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco (D–Downey) introduced Assembly Bill 2743, designed to protect consumers, encourage innovation, and ensure California remains a leader in the sharing economy.

Her appearance on Insurance Hour with host Karl Susman provided rare insight into how this legislation came to be — and why it matters for both small business owners and consumers statewide.

Pacheco began the conversation by answering a simple but important question: what exactly is peer-to-peer car sharing?

"It's the ability to rent out your vehicle — your personal car — and allow someone else to utilize that vehicle when you're not using it," she explained.

Think of it as Airbnb for cars. Instead of renting a vehicle from a traditional fleet operator like Hertz or Enterprise, you rent directly from another individual who lists their personal car on an app.

"If you have a BMW, if you have a Tesla, you can rent it out," Pacheco said. "And if you don't — you can rent one!"

Apps like Turo and Getaround handle the logistics: matching owners and renters, managing payment, and providing short-term insurance coverage during the rental period.

Susman, ever the practical thinker, asked Pacheco to describe how the process actually works for users.

"You open the app, search for vehicles in your area — like Downey, in my case — and you pick the car and the dates you want to rent," she explained. "Then you follow instructions from the owner about where to find the keys and drop the car off when you're done."

It's a seamless, smartphone-driven experience. Some owners leave keys in lockboxes, while others meet renters in person. Rentals can last from a few hours to a few days, depending on the listing.

In this episode of "Insurance Hour," host Karl Susman interviews Assemblywoman Blanca Pacheco about her new bill aimed at setting insurance limits for car-sharing services. The conversation delves into the nuances of liability insurance, consumer choices in purchasing policies, and the potential impact of the proposed legislation on car-sharing. Karl provides insights into the importance of liability insurance as a protective buffer against negligence claims and explains how consumers can make informed decisions regarding their insurance needs.

Wanna text us?

Insurance Hour is hosted by renowned insurance expert Karl Susman. Karl is a frequent guest on television stations such as ABC, CBS, Spectrum, The CW and FOX, and now his popular radio program is available online throughout California and world-wide.

Listeners can now tune in to Insurance Hour on great AM radio station KMET throughout the state of California.

In addition to traditional radio, Insurance Hour is available on several popular streaming platforms, ensuring that listeners can access the show at their convenience.

Audiences worldwide can now enjoy Insurance Hour at InsuranceHour.com, on YouTube, Amazon Music, Tuneln, Alexa, Apple Podcasts, and the iHeartRadio app.

For more information about "Insurance Hour" and its programming, please contact Lara Starr at [email protected]

In the ever-changing landscape of California legislation, new technologies, transportation models, and consumer behaviors often outpace existing laws. Few people understand this balancing act — between innovation, regulation, and fairness — better than Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco, who joined Insurance Hour host Karl Susman for an enlightening discussion about peer-to-peer car sharing, small business protection, and the realities of public service.

The conversation, filled with humor and candor, revealed both the human side of policymaking and the technical challenges of ensuring that laws evolve alongside modern life.

Before delving into the specifics of her legislative work, Pacheco shared the story of how she found her way into politics — a path shaped by community service and personal dedication.

"I always wanted to be an attorney," she said. "I went to UCLA, then Loyola Law School, became an attorney, passed the California State Bar. About ten years into my practice, I got involved with the community — with the Kiwanis Club of Downey — and that eventually led to being asked to run for City Council in 2016."

Her commitment to service didn't stop there. When a vacancy opened in the California State Assembly, she was encouraged to run — and won.

"Here I am," she said with a smile. "Two years into my service as an Assemblymember."

Today, Pacheco represents the 64th Assembly District, covering communities like Downey, Bell, Cudahy, Norwalk, Santa Fe Springs, and La Mirada — a diverse cross-section of Southern California that faces both suburban and urban challenges.

Balancing the demands of political life with family responsibilities is no small feat. Pacheco described a weekly routine that keeps her grounded and connected.

"I fly up to Sacramento Monday mornings and back home on Thursdays," she said. "I call my mom every day, check in with my family, and stay in touch with everyone in L.A."

When Susman joked about the legislature's "recess" being like kindergarten, Pacheco laughed and clarified:

"We call it 'work back home in the district.'"

Her dedication extends beyond legislation — she also maintains a rigorous 6 a.m. workout routine.

"You're one of those people," Susman teased.
"No pain, no gain," Pacheco replied with a grin.

California's homeowners insurance crisis has reached a breaking point. Premiums are skyrocketing, carriers are retreating, and consumers are running out of options. While the debate often focuses on rate filings, reinsurance costs, and market dynamics, one underlying truth remains: the system can't fix itself without leadership, honesty, and collaboration.

That was the message at the heart of the latest Insurance Hour conversation between host Karl Susman and Assemblyman Tom Lackey — a former California Highway Patrol officer turned lawmaker, who has become one of the most straightforward voices in Sacramento's insurance reform discussions.

Their conversation wasn't about political talking points or technical jargon. It was about truth — the hard kind — and the uncomfortable reality that California's insurance market can't survive without difficult decisions.

As the episode opened, Susman asked Lackey where he sees California's insurance situation heading. The Assemblyman's answer was blunt:

"We can't ignore it anymore. We have to be honest with people. I believe there's more mystery than there are answers right now. And it's because there's a lot of hesitation to be factual."

That hesitation — whether from political caution or fear of backlash — is, in Lackey's view, one of the greatest obstacles to reform. Without transparency about what's broken, Californians can't understand what needs to be fixed.

"Once we start feeling comfortable being factual and honest with people," he said, "we'll find a solution. It won't be comfortable for a lot of people, but it will be manageable. And that's what we need."

Susman agreed, noting that both consumers and policymakers often prefer comforting narratives to hard truths — yet those narratives have led the state into its current crisis.

"We've gotten to a point where there's nowhere left to go," Susman said. "We have carriers leaving, and the few that remain are charging rates that are not sustainable for consumers."

Throughout the discussion, both men returned repeatedly to one word: leadership.

"The insurance commissioner needs to stop making excuses," Lackey said. "He needs to come up with something. And if he needs help — from the Legislature, from the Governor, from whoever — he needs to come forward and be honest. That's what we need. That's what a leader does."

It was a pointed but respectful reminder that responsibility lies at every level — from regulators and lawmakers to industry executives.

Lackey emphasized that the crisis isn't just a policy issue; it's a leadership challenge. Too many people, he said, are afraid to say what ev ...

The growing crisis in California's insurance market — with insurers pulling back, rates climbing, and coverage disappearing — has become a national conversation. But what if the solution didn't come from Sacramento, but from Washington, D.C.?

That's exactly what Representative Adam Schiff's proposed federal reinsurance bill aims to explore. The concept — though still in its infancy — could reshape how insurance companies nationwide handle catastrophic losses from wildfires, hurricanes, earthquakes, and floods.

In a recent episode of Insurance Hour, host Karl Susman and Assemblyman Tom Lackey discussed the idea, its potential, and its pitfalls. Their conversation reflected both curiosity and caution: a recognition that while new solutions are needed, federal involvement brings its own risks.

Let's unpack what this proposal entails, how it could impact insurers and policyholders, and why the conversation itself may be just as important as the policy.

At its core, the proposal would establish a federal reinsurance fund — a nationwide pool that insurance carriers could pay into. That pool would then serve as a financial backstop for catastrophic events that exceed private insurers' ability to pay.

As Susman summarized it:

"It's a federal reinsurance program whereby carriers would contribute to a fund held by the federal government. When a natural disaster fits a certain category — wildfire, flood, earthquake, hurricane — insurers could draw from that pool to cover losses that exceed their capped exposure."

Think of it as an insurance policy for insurance companies — a safety net to stabilize the industry during extreme disasters.

Susman compared it to the Social Security trust fund, half-jokingly noting, "Of course, they'd never touch it… because that never happens."

The humor wasn't lost on Lackey, who responded with cautious optimism:

"I'm open to any kind of solution-driven thought. Partnership might not be a terrible thing — but we've seen the federal government also muck things up. So it would definitely need some fine-tuning."

While California has become the poster child for insurance turmoil, Susman was quick to point out that the crisis is not a California-only problem.

"Florida has problems. Texas has problems. Louisiana has problems. New York has problems. Colorado is opening up its first FAIR Plan because they're having wildfire issues that private carriers can't handle."

When it comes to insurance, few topics spark as much debate as fairness. Homeowners living in wildfire zones, earthquake-prone regions, or rural communities often feel penalized by higher premiums and limited options — while their urban counterparts pay far less. But is it unfair that riskier areas cost more to insure, or simply reasonable?

In a recent Insurance Hour discussion, host Karl Susman and Assemblyman Tom Lackey — a former California Highway Patrol officer turned state legislator — tackled this very question. Their conversation peeled back the emotion and politics surrounding the issue and explored what "fair" really means in the context of insurance.

As Lackey put it:

"Instead of using the word fair, what we really need to talk about is what's reasonable."

This shift from fairness to reasonableness is more than semantic — it's central to understanding how modern insurance pricing works and why Californians in high-risk areas are paying what they are.

When homeowners in wildfire-prone or rural areas open their renewal notices and see double-digit premium hikes, their first reaction is often anger. It feels unfair — especially if they've never filed a claim.

But as Lackey explained, "fair" is subjective. What's fair to one person might feel unjust to another. "Reasonable," however, can be explained, measured, and justified with data.

"If insurers can explain the reason why these rates are where they are," Lackey said, "then that meets the definition of reasonable. Because it's hard to argue that any rate is truly fair."

Insurance rates are calculated using actuarial science — a process that evaluates risk factors, loss history, exposure, and the cost of potential claims. When risk increases, so must the premium.

Wildfire-prone rural regions, for example, face far greater exposure than urban neighborhoods surrounded by concrete and hydrants. The same applies to properties near fault lines or floodplains.

In that sense, charging higher premiums for higher risk isn't discrimination — it's math.

Assemblyman Lackey, who represents a largely rural district in California, acknowledged that many of his constituents are feeling squeezed.

"Right now, the rates for some of these rural areas, in my opinion, are not reasonable," he said. "Are they fair? Depends who you talk to. But reasonableness has to do with the ability to pay it."

That phrase — ability to pay ...

California's insurance market continues to be one of the most volatile in the country. Homeowners, landlords, and businesses alike are struggling to find — or afford — coverage. As major insurers scale back or exit the state, the California FAIR Plan, once a last-resort safety net, has become the default option for tens of thousands of policyholders.

Now, a new regulatory change from the California Department of Insurance (CDI) is expanding the FAIR Plan's reach — but not without controversy.

On July 26, 2024, California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara announced a major expansion of the FAIR Plan's commercial coverage limits and a controversial provision that could allow insurers to pass certain costs onto consumers.

While the Department calls this part of a "sustainable insurance strategy," critics argue it could amount to an industry bailout that shifts financial risk onto policyholders.

Let's unpack what's happening, what it means for California homeowners and businesses, and why experts like Karl Susman, host of Insurance Hour, say this decision is both a blessing and a warning sign.

The California FAIR Plan (Fair Access to Insurance Requirements) was created in 1968, during a time when property insurance was becoming scarce after a series of urban riots and wildfires.

Contrary to popular belief, the FAIR Plan is not a government-funded insurer. It's a shared risk pool made up of all the insurance companies licensed to do business in the state. Each insurer contributes financially to the FAIR Plan in proportion to their market share.

That means when you buy a FAIR Plan policy, your premium isn't subsidized by tax dollars — it's part of a collective arrangement among private insurers.

The FAIR Plan's original purpose was to serve as a temporary bridge, providing bare-bones fire coverage to property owners who couldn't find insurance elsewhere. But over the last five years, it's become a pillar of the state's insurance system — handling more than 300,000 active policies, a number that has more than doubled since 2019.

Until now, the FAIR Plan's maximum coverage limit for commercial properties — including condominium and homeowners' associations (HOAs) — was $20 million.

Under the new rules announced by Comm ...

California's insurance market is in the middle of one of the most consequential shifts in decades. Insurers are leaving. Homeowners are panicking. Regulators are scrambling to restore balance between what's fair for consumers and what's sustainable for companies.

In this latest Insurance Hour conversation, Karl Susman sat down again with Assemblyman Tom Lackey, one of the few lawmakers in Sacramento willing to speak candidly about what fairness really means in this crisis — and why both the public and policymakers need to confront uncomfortable truths about cost, competition, and risk.

The discussion peeled back the politics and exposed the hard math behind California's insurance predicament — one where everyone wants relief, but few are willing to accept the reality of what it will take to achieve it.

As Susman put it early in the conversation, "What's fair to one person might not be fair to another."

It's a deceptively simple statement that goes to the heart of California's insurance crisis. For consumers, "fair" often means affordable coverage and stable premiums. For insurers, it means the ability to operate profitably in one of the world's most disaster-prone regions.

Lackey captured the tension perfectly:

"In order for us to have what we deserve to have here, it's got to make sense. It's got to pencil out. The reason companies have left isn't that they don't want to make money — it's that they don't think they can survive."

That distinction — between unwillingness and inability — matters. Insurers aren't leaving California out of spite; they're doing it because, under current regulations, many simply can't make the numbers work.

"You can't really blame someone for leaving when they feel like they can't be successful," Lackey said. "We're dealing with realistic circumstances."

When companies exit the market, competition decreases — and prices rise. It's basic economics, yet the politics surrounding "fairness" often obscure that truth.

One of the most striking points Lackey made was his frustration with misinformation and political posturing.

"When people mischaracterize the problem and aren't forthright about what we're facing, it pacifies one group versus another — and makes it look like everything's going to be okay," he warned.

The result is a dangerous form of complacency. For years, California has delayed tough reforms in hopes that the crisis would resolve itself. It hasn't.

"It's a habit-forming circumstance," Lackey said. "We procrastinate until we can procrastinate no more. And I think we're right there."