Homeowners who spend big to harden their houses against wildfire could soon get something more than peace of mind for their trouble: a guaranteed shot at regular home insurance. A new state bill would force insurers to write and renew policies for properties that meet state wildfire safety standards, and punish companies that refuse.
SB 1076, introduced this month by state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez, would kick in on Jan. 1, 2028. It gives regulators the power to bar noncompliant carriers from selling both home and auto insurance in California. Supporters say the bill is aimed squarely at survivors rebuilding after the Eaton Fire, while insurers warn it could push an already fragile market closer to the edge.
What SB 1076 would do
On its face, the bill says an admitted insurer may not refuse to offer, sell or renew a residential property policy for any home that meets minimum home hardening and wildfire mitigation standards set by the insurance commissioner. If an insurer does sell coverage to those homeowners, the policy would have to be at least as robust in scope as the company’s standard residential product, not a stripped down version.
SB 1076 also builds in a safety valve. Companies could seek temporary waivers if they can show they are overexposed in a specific geographic area, essentially arguing that a single region has too much of their risk. According to the bill text on California Legislative Information, the commissioner could suspend or revoke an insurer’s certificate of authority for up to five years for habitual violations, or if a carrier decides to exit the market rather than comply with the new rules.
Who’s backing it and why
Pérez has framed SB 1076 as a fix for homeowners who play by the rules, rebuild or retrofit to higher safety standards, and then discover they still cannot get a standard policy. She says survivors told her they fear being denied coverage even after they meet what she described as the highest protections.
The bill is co sponsored by the Eaton Fire Survivors Network and Consumer Watchdog. Both argue that voters support insurance guarantees for homes that are hardened against wildfire and say the measure would help fire survivors actually move back into their communities instead of lingering in limbo. See Sen. Pérez’s announcement and the consumer group’s statement for more context.
Industry pushback
Insurance trade groups did not wait long to object. They warn the proposal could accelerate carriers’ retreat from California rather than slow it.
The Personal Insurance Federation of California said the bill “would require insurers to lose money in California’s high fire risk areas or else be kicked out of the state,” a blunt assessment of how they see the economics playing out. The American Property and Casualty Insurance Association said it was still reviewing the proposal and cautioned that it could hurt market stability, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Why proponents say it matters
Backers of SB 1076 keep pointing to the state’s Safer from Wildfires framework, an interagency effort that began in 2021, which lays out specific steps that significantly lower the odds a house will burn in a wildfire. Those upgrades include installing Class A fire rated roofs, creating a five foot ember resistant “Zone 0” immediately around the structure, and sealing vents so embers cannot slip inside and ignite the home from within.
They also note what has happened as private carriers have pulled back. The California FAIR Plan, the state’s insurer of last resort, has swelled as more homeowners are pushed off traditional policies and onto bare bones fire coverage. That shift has left many residents with fewer choices and often higher overall costs, according to reporting and public data compiled by state and local outlets.
What happens next in Sacramento
SB 1076 was introduced on Feb. 13, 2026, and lists Sen. McGuire as a coauthor. The bill still has to survive policy committee hearings and a fiscal review before it can reach the full Senate for a vote.
In the meantime, expect crowded hearings and heavy lobbying from survivor groups and insurance companies as lawmakers try to decide whether a legal mandate is the right way to expand coverage while keeping the market on its feet.
The bill effectively poses a test: require insurers to underwrite homes that meet defensible space and hardening standards, or risk pushing even more business into the FAIR Plan and shrinking the private market further. How Sacramento answers that question will shape the future for thousands of homeowners rebuilding in fire prone neighborhoods, and for the insurers still willing to write policies there.
