The Problem Hitting Home
Imagine spending 80 hours scrambling to find insurance for your home. That’s what happened to Stephen Weil, a Carson City retiree living on Social Security. His insurance company, Farmers, dropped him after 30 years. The reason? His house sits in a high-risk wildfire area.
Weil isn’t alone. Nearly 1,500 Nevada homeowners have lost their insurance due to wildfire risk. Two major insurers have stopped writing new policies in Nevada altogether. For folks who’ve worked their whole lives to own a home, this creates a real crisis.
The Conservative Concern
Here’s why this matters if you believe in limited government and free markets. When private insurance becomes hard to get, politicians start talking about government solutions. That’s exactly what’s happening in Nevada.
Governor Joe Lombardo mentioned the problem in his January speech. He said homeowners need:
“adequate insurance in place to help recover from loss and to stay in their homes.”
Sounds reasonable, right?
But here’s the rub. Some states like California created state-run insurance programs. These become insurance of last resort when private companies won’t cover you. Nevada lawmakers looked at doing something similar but couldn’t agree on it.
The Experimental Approach
Instead, Nevada’s legislature created what they’re calling an experimental program. Starting in 2026, insurance companies can test new policies and change their rates without following current regulations.
Think about that for a second. They’re removing regulatory red tape to let businesses try new approaches.
Anahit Baghshetsyan from the Nevada Policy Research Institute sees promise here. She explains insurers might offer just wildfire coverage instead of full home insurance. Or maybe summer-only policies when fire risk peaks. “One policy you could think about would be debundling the home insurance, offering only wildfire insurance, mitigate the costs through that, or limited-time insurance, so maybe people would just seek wildfire insurance only in the summer months,” Baghshetsyan said.
This approach trusts private companies to innovate solutions. It keeps government out of the insurance business.
What Critics Say
Consumer advocates worry this creates problems. Michael DeLong from the Consumer Federation of America says less oversight means less protection.
DeLong said:
“Instead of protecting people broadly, they’ll say, ‘We’ll protect you against wildfires, but we won’t protect you against, like, falling trees or damage from storms.’ Most people do not read their insurance policy, and of the people who do, it’s even harder to understand.”
Their argument boils down to this: people need government protection because insurance is too complicated.
The Federal Temptation
Katherine Hempstead from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation points to how government already runs Social Security as retirement insurance. She suggests Washington might step in if states can’t fix insurance gaps.
Several federal bills sit in Congress right now. They would give money to homeowners who make their properties fire-resistant. Federal grants already exist for this.
But Hempstead admits there’s a problem. Every state faces different risks. What works in Nevada won’t work in Florida or Maine.
Hempstead said:
“Housing, it’s trickier, because you have less uniformity in what the risks are.”
She also said something striking:
“I don’t think anyone knows the answer.”
Why This Matters Now
According to Nevada’s 2025 Insurance Market Report, natural disasters nationwide have destroyed more homes. Insurance companies are rethinking their risks everywhere. Premium rates keep climbing.
This isn’t just a Nevada problem. It’s coming to more states. The question is whether states will expand government or trust markets to adapt.
What Comes Next
Nevada’s experiment runs for four years. We’ll see if removing regulations helps insurers stay and create new products. Or if it leaves consumers exposed.
Meanwhile, those federal bills could pass anytime. That would mean Washington money flowing into what’s traditionally been a state issue.
The stakes are simple. Either free markets adapt to new risks, or government grows to fill the gap. Stephen Weil and 1,500 other Nevada families are living this question right now.
The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Nevada News & Views. This article was written with the assistance of AI. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
