On Tuesday, June 2, in addition to a high-profile primary for governor, California voters will choose among 11 candidates for insurance commissioner. Under the state's top-two primary system, the top two vote recipients, regardless of party affiliation, will advance to the general election on November 3.
Candidates are running to succeed incumbent insurance commissioner Ricardo Lara, a Democrat, who is term-limited. The field of candidates includes four Democrats, five Republicans, one Socialist and one independent.
Digital Insurance contacted all candidates with a questionnaire divided into four areas. This is the first of our four-part series compiling candidates' answers on overall insurance regulatory issues. The next three parts, to be published in the coming days, will cover the use of AI in insurance, rate increases and regulation, and climate change.
Candidates Eric Thor Aarnio (R), Steven Bradford (D), Robert Howell (R) and Sean Lee (R) did not respond to the questionnaire.
What is your assessment of how the current outgoing commissioner, Ricardo Lara, has performed in the role, and what do you see as your first duties if elected?
Ben Allen (D): Commissioner Lara has had to manage one of the hardest insurance environments in California history, including wildfire losses, insurer pullbacks, FAIR Plan growth and affordability pressures. I respect the difficulty of that job. But Californians need faster, more transparent and more accountable leadership from the Department. My first duties would be to stabilize the market, reduce reliance on the FAIR Plan, improve consumer service, speed up reviews without weakening Proposition 103, enforce claims-handling laws, and make sure mitigation work by homeowners and communities is actually recognized by insurers.
Keith Davis (Ind.): My assessment of Ricardo Lara is that while mistakes have definitely been made, it is also an incredibly difficult job. I believe he has done some things right that many people may not fully recognize yet, but time will reveal their impact. One of my first priorities as Commissioner would be to reassess California's fire-risk scoring and modeling system to ensure we are not unfairly labeling entire communities as high-fire zones. The current system is driving up costs, destabilizing the insurance market and causing consumers to lose confidence in obtaining affordable coverage.
Merritt Farren (R): Ricardo Lara has completely failed the citizens of California. He lacks the high-level legal and business experience necessary and simply is not and never was up to the highly demanding role of commissioner.
My priorities will be to fix our insurance crisis through a full rewrite of our insurance regulations to allow innovative, customer-centric companies to bring to market in California the first-rate, affordable insurance options we need, implementation of my CAL Reinsure plan to eliminate the need for the FAIR Plan, action on community fire safety, and reduction of the underlying costs driving up insurance costs.
Jane Kim (D): Commissioner Lara inherited a system under strain and passed some meaningful reforms. But the Sustainable Insurance Strategy, while well-intentioned, only addresses sustainability for insurers and not the insured, leaving an increasing number of Californians permanently priced out of insurance. His proposed changes to limit consumer advocate participation in rate proceedings moved in the wrong direction.
My first acts will be to strengthen enforcement of coverage guarantees and existing consumer protection laws, launch market conduct examinations of insurers, strengthen the "Safer from Wildfires" program to better reward mitigation, and begin building the transparent, accountable office Californians deserve.
Stacy Korsgaden (R): Ricardo Lara has failed to protect consumers, using the office in a self-serving way and demonstrating a lack of real insurance experience. As Commissioner, my first act will be a full audit of the Department's budget, staffing and facilities to identify tangible ways to improve customer service and responsiveness. Second, I will create a new division to bring insurance carriers back to California and attract new companies, increasing competition, service and affordability. Third, I will streamline the Proposition 103 rate-approval process while preserving strong consumer protections, so we keep carriers writing business in California and restore a stable, competitive and fair insurance marketplace for everyone.
Eduardo "Lalo" Vargas (Soc.): Ricardo Lara has put the interests of the insurance industry above the interests of consumers. Through the Sustainable Insurance Strategy, Lara has changed the framework of insurance regulation in California, paving the way for never-ending rate hikes and fewer regulations. If elected, my first responsibility would be to roll back the Sustainable Insurance Strategy and restore the Department back to its roots as a watchdog, not a collaborator of the insurance industry. By freezing rates and opening up investigations into the largest insurers, we will begin the process of holding insurance companies accountable for exploitative business practices.
Patrick Wolff (D): The first 4+ years of Lara's tenure were unsuccessful, as he allowed California's P&C insurance market to slide into total dysfunction. The Sustainable Insurance Strategy (SIS), launched in September 2023, is an important step forward towards fixing the crisis. Unfortunately, Lara has lost public credibility due certain aspects of his behavior in office. My first duties if elected will be to carry forward and strengthen the SIS, while regaining the public trust.
How would you address California's insurance crisis, which has been more severe than many other states?
Ben Allen: We will not solve this crisis by simply approving higher rates. We need to reduce the underlying risk, modernize regulation and protect consumers. That means accelerating wildfire risk reduction, making home hardening count in underwriting and pricing, improving transparency around catastrophe models, reducing FAIR Plan dependence, and ensuring insurers that benefit from new tools commit to writing more coverage in California. I have helped advance billions of dollars for wildfire resilience and authored consumer protection laws after disasters. As Commissioner, I would bring consumers, insurers, local governments and policymakers together to rebuild a functioning market.
Keith Davis: The California insurance crisis is largely about carriers leaving the state and consumers being left with fewer and fewer options. Outside of the devastating Los Angeles fires, California has actually maintained a fairly stable insurance market that did not justify the level of instability and massive premium increases we are seeing today. This crisis can be fixed, but it will take leadership willing to step in, challenge the current system and fight for the people of California instead of simply accepting the status quo.
Merritt Farren: My three-part plan includes the rewriting of our regulations to make it easier for insurance companies to operate in California while better protecting consumers than they are today, and to spark a much needed tech revolution in insurance, implementation of CAL Reinsure, which is modeled on programs in Florida and the U.K., and focus on community safety and an attack on underlying costs in auto, home, business, workers comp and health insurance.
Jane Kim: California's crisis is structural: the private insurance model is built to price and avoid risk, not reduce it. As climate disasters accelerate, insurers pull back from high-risk areas, shift exposure off their balance sheets, and raise premiums on the customers they keep. We have socialized the costs of climate catastrophe while privatizing the gains. My solution is a Disaster Insurance For All program. This public, nonprofit single-payer system places all homes in one statewide pool, invests in prevention and resilience to reduce risk, and ensures no Californian loses coverage because of where they live.
Stacy Korsgaden: California's insurance market is failing due to excessive regulation, price controls, and commissioners who block risk-based pricing for political gain. My solution is twofold: aggressively reduce underlying risks, especially wildfire and crime, by working closely with the governor and Legislature, and simultaneously open the market to new, innovative insurance products. This combination will attract capital back into the state, depopulate the FAIR Plan, restore real competition, and finally deliver meaningful relief to California policyholders who are currently paying more for less coverage.
Eduardo "Lalo" Vargas: By restricting the availability of insurance, the insurance industry is holding the state hostage and demanding that we pay a ransom of less regulation, higher rates and higher premiums. I will open up market-conduct investigations into the largest property and casualty insurers in the state and hold companies accountable for illegally boycotting the state. I would also fight for a public insurer that can guarantee coverage for all — whether it's in response to a natural disaster, a car crash or a health emergency. Everyone deserves affordable insurance as a human right.
Patrick Wolff: I have a comprehensive policy plan, which is organized around three key themes: (1) holding insurance companies accountable; (2) increasing choice and competition; (3) increasing transparency. I believe we need to make it much easier for insurance companies to come to market, while doing a much better job of regulating insurance company market conduct, and reporting regularly to the public on key metrics. As part of increasing choice and competition, we need to reduce wildfire risk, partly through direct government action and partly through better alignment of carrier and homeowner incentives.
In our
Ben Allen: California has a large Department, but the question is whether its resources are being used effectively for the scale and complexity of the market. We need enough actuarial, legal, enforcement, consumer assistance, technology and data capacity to review filings promptly, scrutinize models, investigate misconduct and respond to consumers. Delays hurt both consumers and the market. I would do an early operational review of the Department to identify bottlenecks, staffing needs, technology gaps and areas where transparency and accountability can be improved.
Keith Davis: California has a lot of employees working in the Department of Insurance, but we also have one of the biggest and most complicated insurance markets in the country. So the real issue is not just how many people work there, it's whether the department has the right leadership, tools and resources to actually help consumers and keep the market stable. I believe we should always be looking at how resources are being used and making sure the focus stays on protecting the people of California.
Merritt Farren: The problem isn't the amount of funding and resources available, it's the way these are being used. I come from two of the world's most customer-centric companies, Amazon and Disney. Both put customers first – something the Department can do a much better job of. Amazon focused on efficiency and simplification – which will be key to revamping the Department to end the insurance crisis currently gripping California. The experience I have in large-scale efficient operations and in large-scale innovation is experience none of my competitors have. It should be considered mandatory for anyone seeking to be Insurance Commissioner.
Jane Kim: The dedicated staff at the Department of Insurance share the same mission: a stable insurance market that protects consumers. But when leadership hesitates to use its market-conduct examination and enforcement powers, it harms the mission. As Commissioner, I'll uplift the department's original purpose: rigorous, independent oversight that puts policyholders first and stabilizes the insurance market. I will operate completely independently and will never take a dime from the insurance industry or their lobbyists.
Stacy Korsgaden: California's insurance market is being regulated to the point of failure. Proposition 103 promises 60-day rate reviews, but the department's overloaded and outdated process routinely blows through that timeline. As climate and wildfire risks grow, carriers cannot get timely, adequate rates, so they freeze new business or leave. This is not an inevitable law problem. It is a management problem that can be fixed with a top-to-bottom assessment of the department and the staffing, technology and leadership needed to deliver fast, fair, actuarially sound decisions.
Eduardo "Lalo" Vargas: The Department of Insurance should be expanded to meet the scale of California's insurance industry. I will hire more staff with a track record of fighting for policyholders, consumers and the victims of natural disasters like wildfires. Organizations who represent policyholders will be encouraged to join my administration, staffing task forces responsible for producing new regulations. A new branch of the Department must be created to expand participation of policyholders in the regulatory process. This department will be responsible for organizing the victims of the insurance industry and empowering them to hold insurance companies accountable and obtain full compensation.
Patrick Wolff: While I cannot answer definitively from the outside, I believe California has adequate regulatory resources. California is a large state and benefits from economies of scale, and the department budget per capita ($260 million for 40 million residents) is higher than the national average ($1.9 billion for 330 million residents). However, I believe resources could be better allocated. California takes far too long to review rate filings (over 300 days vs. ~60 days for other prior-approval states) due to excessive micromanagement. These resources could be redeployed towards better market-conduct regulation.
Will the
Ben Allen: The financing plan may help manage immediate solvency concerns, but it does not solve the underlying problem. The FAIR Plan was designed as a safety net, not the primary insurance option for hundreds of thousands of Californians. If we do not reduce wildfire risk, bring admitted carriers back into the market, and create stronger incentives for insurers to write coverage in hard-hit communities, the FAIR Plan will remain under pressure. We need to stabilize the FAIR Plan while making it smaller over time by rebuilding the normal market.
Keith Davis: The new FAIR Plan financing setup may help keep the program afloat for now, but it does not really fix the bigger problem. The real issue is that too many insurance carriers have pulled back or left parts of California, which has pushed more and more homeowners onto the FAIR Plan. If we do not create a stronger and healthier insurance market, the FAIR Plan will keep growing beyond what it was meant for. We need real long-term solutions that bring stability back while still keeping insurance affordable for consumers.
Merritt Farren: FAIR Plan is a disaster for consumers and insurance companies. It was never intended for the purpose it is now being put to. We need to adopt CAL Reinsure so that all Californians can get the home insurance they need from the insurance companies they want to get their insurance from. CAL Reinsure will also speed and simplify payout by requiring full payment of insured coverages within 30 days of a total loss of a home or structure due to community fire.
Jane Kim: The financing plan addresses solvency, but doesn't fix the underlying problems. The FAIR Plan was created as a civil rights tool to fight redlining; it was never meant to be California's primary climate-disaster fund. Because it's run by a consortium of private insurers with zero public accountability, short-term financing will buy time but won't reform its governance, or solve the availability and affordability crisis. I will restructure the governing board to include consumer advocates, labor and public representatives, require full transparency in its operations, and build a Disaster Insurance for All system that makes the FAIR Plan's current role obsolete.
Stacy Korsgaden: No. Bonding authority can keep the FAIR Plan alive after big fires, but it does not "save" it. The best way to protect the FAIR Plan is to shrink it to a true insurer of last resort by moving as many homes as possible into a healthy market. Bond financing makes the FAIR Plan more tolerable for carriers because they know shortfalls can be smoothed with bonds instead of massive assessments. The debt is still repaid by policyholders through premiums and surcharges. It is only sustainable if we fix Proposition 103 implementation and CDI management so private carriers can profitably write coverage again.
Eduardo "Lalo" Vargas: The FAIR plan is not a sustainable system for consumers, but neither is the private insurance market. Over 600,000 people have been forced onto the FAIR plan because of profiteering and maneuvering by the insurance industry. The way out of this crisis is to confront the private insurance industry head on and to transition consumers not only off the FAIR plan, but off the private insurance industry altogether. Using the assets and the profits of the existing insurance industry, we could create a public insurance system which provides low-cost but expansive coverage for homes, auto and healthcare.
Patrick Wolff: No. Issuing bonds addresses liquidity, but not capital adequacy, customer service or misalignment of incentives. The only way to fix the FAIR Plan is to fix the admitted market so customers have better alternatives with regular carriers. In return for making it easier to do business in California, carriers must be required to invest in the FAIR Plan to improve its service. And as the admitted market heals and customers have ample options there, FAIR Plan pricing must be allowed to become fully actuarially sound, so that incentives are properly aligned and the FAIR Plan can be depopulated.
