Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Economy

Hurricane Idalia Might Wreck Florida’s Insurer of Last Resort

And anyone who the company covers might be legally obligated to rescue it.

•
A house being blown by wind.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The entire state of Florida may end up on the hook for damage caused by Hurricane Idalia.

That’s because the state-run insurance company, Citizens, has hundreds of thousands of policies in the area that could be hit by the storm. The most recent National Hurricane Center forecast projects the largest storm surge just north of the heavily populated Tampa Bay area in counties where Citizens has over half the market. The center is also expecting high winds from Tampa north all the way to the state’s Big Bend region, and unlike many private insurers in the state, Citizens is willing to cover wind damage.

Citizens is designed to be backup for Floridians if they can’t get private insurance for their homes and commercial property. As more and more insurance companies leave the state or go out of business, the company has massively expanded its reach over the state’s insurance market. In 2023, Citizens expects to have 1.7 million clients with $5.1 billion in premiums, compared to under 500,000 policyholders and $877 million in premiums in 2019, according to the company’s budget report.

“The difference for this storm of a few degrees is billions of dollars to Citizens,” Jeff Brandes, a former Florida state senator and president of the Florida Policy Project, told me. If it hits Pasco or Hernando counties head-on, Brandes said, the resulting insurance claims could exhaust Citizens’ current surplus and force it to issue “special assessments” — essentially one-time bills — on the state’s policyholders, including drivers. Citizens has over 50% of the property insurance market in the two counties north of Tampa Bay, according to Brandes, meaning that substantial storm damage could incur large losses for Citizens.

Get one great climate story in your inbox every day:

Florida’s domestic property insurers have been losing money on underwriting — the difference between premiums collected and claims paid — since 2016, according to the state’s Office of Insurance Regulation. Earlier this year, another Florida insurer, United Property & Casualty Insurance Company, was declared insolvent. Farmers said in July that it would leave the state, one of several insurers to stop doing business there or go out of business entirely.

The combination of high risk from storms and an increasingly uncompetitive insurance market has led to some of the highest home insurance premiums in the nation. In Hillsborough County, homeowners pay an average premium of $2,752, while in Miami-Dade, it’s $5,665.

These high costs are driven by a combination of Florida’s, especially the coasts’, high risk of storm damage to property, and its uniquely litigious environment, which the Florida state government has tried to reform.

Citizens, however, is unlikely to face insolvency because it has an immense backstop: Floridians. If any of the company’s separate accounts are overdrawn (they’re scheduled to be combined early next year), the company can issue assessments to make up the difference.

“A devastating storm or series of smaller storms could cause a deficit in one or more account, leaving Citizens without enough money to pay all claims. If this happens, Florida law requires Citizens to charge a series of assessments until the deficit is paid,” according to the company.

The first level of assessments goes to Citizens policyholders, then a 2 percent surcharge on the premiums paid by private insurance policyholders for the company’s Coastal Account which provides coverage in specified high risk areas. The third level of assessments goes to both private and Citizens policyholders — including home and auto insurance policyholders — until the accounts are made solvent.

“Emergency Assessments can be up to 10% per account per year for each of Citizens’ three accounts. It is levied on both Citizens and non-Citizens policyholders for as many years as necessary until the deficit is resolved,” according to Citizens.

“They have this incredible assessment base,” Brandes told me. “If someone is paying $3,000 [in annual premiums], they can force you to write another for $1,200 or $1,300. Imagine people’s shock when that shows up at their door.”

Earlier this year, Citizens reported that “due to Hurricane Ian, Citizens’ financial resources have been significantly depleted,” and that its surplus had declined to just under $5 billion. This could mean that Florida policyholders could be on the hook for the state-run company: “If Florida is impacted by a storm or series of storms in 2023, Citizens will need to rely on its assessment capability and/or post‐event financing to meet its policyholder obligations,” Citizens said in the report.

“You see massive amount of socializing risk [in a state] that doesn’t want to talk about socialism,” Brandes said. “We’re the free state of Florida except for our largest liability — Citizens — which we are happy to subsidize.”

Read more about insurance:

Commercial Real Estate Is Getting Walloped By Climate Change

Yellow
🔒

You’ve reached your free article limit

Subscribe to Heatmap News for unlimited access to daily energy and climate coverage.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Spotlight

A Giant Data Center Offers a Permitting Reform Test Case

What would happen to Project Jupiter if the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act is passed?

Project Jupiter.
Heatmap Illustration/Project Jupiter, Library of Congress

One of the nation’s largest data centers is struggling under permitting woes. So let’s play a game: would the bipartisan permitting bill in Congress make the path easier, or might the federal legislation be irrelevant to large hyperscalers under development today?

Meet Project Jupiter, a mega project in southern New Mexico in Dona Ana County under development by Oracle and OpenAI, with financial backing from SoftBank and political support from the Trump administration for being a part of Stargate, a major Trump administration public-private initiative boosting AI development. Project Jupiter would be one of the largest data centers in the country if completed and currently is expected to run on a microgrid powered by fuel cells converting gas to electricity, which the developers claim will burn much cleaner than a typical off-grid gas turbine power plant.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

The Trump Administration Is Still Messing with Offshore Wind Farms

And more of the week’s top news around project fights.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. New England (and Maryland) – The Trump administration is still messing with offshore wind farms, even while trying to pass a permitting reform deal. Examining the court filings reveals why they may feel empowered to do it — and I’m not sure how this ends.

  • Last Friday, in a legal case brought by anti-wind activists, the Justice Department submitted a motion in federal court to send the construction and operations plan for Orsted’s Revolution Wind project in New England back to the Interior Department for more analysis. On Wednesday, the DOJ entered a similar motion in another case challenging the construction and operations plan for U.S. Wind’s MarWin project off the coast of Maryland in a lawsuit brought by the state’s coastal community of Ocean City.
  • Trump’s actions led some to question whether the president was sabotaging the deal, and others to claim the media coverage itself was an attempt to kill it. Going further, supporters of the bipartisan bill claimed the DOJ's motions were precisely why the bill should become law, implying it would guard offshore wind farms against this sort of maneuver.
  • However, for the bill’s backers, it’s worth considering why the Trump administration believes it has the legal authority to do this. It’s also time to ask whether the bill would actually protect these wind farms against this tactic.
  • To answer those questions, you have to rewind. On May 1, 2025, the Interior Department withdrew a Biden solicitor’s opinion instructing the agency to “strike a rational balance” between wind power and fishing interests. This revocation document is technically not in effect at the moment; one year later, a federal court ruled the opinion was potentially illegal as a part of a preliminary injunction on five anti-renewables actions requested by solar and wind trade groups. The Trump administration is contesting that ruling, and the administration has filed a notice of appeal.
  • In August, despite that opinion being in doubt, a federal judge granted Trump permission under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to remand the construction and operations plan for the now-defunct Atlantic Shores offshore wind farm in the waters of New Jersey. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb specifically wrote that Atlantic Shores failed to demonstrate the federal government had limitations under OSCLA on revisiting these plans and that the injunction from the litigation on appeal “did not prohibit all reevaluation of agency action.”
  • In the recent Revolution and MarWin filings, Trump’s Justice Department argues the construction and operations plans should be remanded under OSCLA without being vacated. The DOJ motions include claims that previous decision documents did not adequately explain impacts to commercial fishing and other industries that use OSCLA waters. It’s not clear if the administration will win these motions.
  • The bipartisan permitting bill would bar the Interior Department and other federal agencies from taking “any new action that would revoke, rescind, withdraw, terminate, suspend, amend, or alter a federal authorization or permit in effect on or after September 16, 2026,” or “any other action to interfere with or prevent the construction or operation at full capacity of a project that has secured all necessary federal authorizations and permits.” The restriction exempts cases where “the agency is required to take such action by order of a court.” As I wrote in our lengthy piece explaining the bill, this provision has a damages component that allows companies impacted by violations to pursue financial compensation.
  • Here’s the billion-dollar question I expect we won’t have answered unless the bill language is enacted and then litigated: Would the court order exception apply to rulings that grant these motions? Or would the developers be able to sue for damages?

2. Columbia County, N.Y. – New York’s renewable energy permitting office has rejected an upstate solar farm on farmland as a House Democrat representing the area joined hands with the Trump administration in publicly railing against the project.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Politics

Climate Races to Watch This November

These seven elections could change state energy policy.

Watching voting.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

No matter how well Democrats do in the House and Senate in November, it’s unlikely to mean anything new on climate policy in Washington, D.C., for as long as Donald Trump remains in the White House.

That is not true when it comes to the other elections this year.

Several states are on the verge of a possible Democratic trifecta, meaning unified control of both chambers of the state legislature and the governor’s mansion. It’s a position that could enable such states to either top off existing climate and energy policies passed in the last decade or to make the first real run at climate legislation in recent history.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue