Committee advances bill to let manufactured-home owners buy replacement-cost coverage from Fair Plan

The Senate Insurance Committee advanced SB 525 after extended debate over fairness, market consequences and the role of the California Fair Plan. The measure, presented by Sen. Lola Jones, would require the California Fair Plan to offer manufactured- and mobile-home owners the option to purchase replacement-cost personal property coverage on an actuarial basis.

Jones said the bill is intended to restore parity for roughly 500,000 Californians who own manufactured homes and often cannot obtain replacement-cost insurance through admitted carriers. Kent Misich, a manufactured-home owner from San Diego County, testified that he exhausted the admitted market and was placed on the Fair Plan without the option to buy replacement-cost coverage. Jones and supporters said the intent is not to subsidize replacement cost for manufactured homeowners but to allow the Fair Plan to offer the product on an actuarial basis so owners may choose to buy it.

Support came from manufactured-home owner advocates and certain industry groups representing park owners. The California Fair Plan registered neutral and submitted a letter raising technical and financial concerns. Opponents and some committee members flagged three primary issues: the potential to increase the Fair Plan’s liabilities, the risk of depopulating or, conversely, overpopulating the Fair Plan, and the need to clarify which commercial or accessory structures (for example, ADUs) are covered.

Members expressed sympathy for homeowners who can’t get full replacement coverage, but several said the bill required more technical work. Sen. Becker and others asked for clearer language addressing record-keeping, potential market impacts and the commissioner’s oversight role. Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara informed the committee his office would engage on the issue and work with stakeholders. The author agreed to continue discussions and invited the Fair Plan and the commissioner to help shape technical amendments.

A roll call during the hearing shows the motion to move the bill forward was made by Senator Nilo and that the committee ultimately recorded a favorable vote; later roll calls in the hearing record show a final committee disposition as “out” with a recorded 6–0 vote after members returned to the hearing. The author said she would continue negotiations and the committee left the measure on call for absent members before it ultimately advanced.