What this page is, and what it is not
We are not Farmers, and we have no relationship with Farmers. We are a private, currently advertising-free website. We are not their agent, not affiliated with them, not endorsed by them, and we cannot see, change or reinstate your policy. To reach Farmers, use the contact details on your own policy documents.
We also do not rate, rank or review insurers — not Farmers, not anyone. This page exists because California's insurance department has published specific orders and announcements about this insurer's homeowners business, and those are checkable documents that change what a reader might reasonably do next. Note the word documents: the 2024 order below is a negotiated settlement in which the department expressly agreed that no factual findings were made.
Everything here is California. None of it describes Farmers' position in any other state.
| What the order says — except where marked “our reading” | |
|---|---|
| What the Department concluded (a recital — Farmers denies it) | The Department “has concluded that Respondent is charging a significant premium for the perils of fire and wildfire. Respondent's DIC policies do not provide coverage for fire and wildfire losses.” |
| Why that matters here | The order itself makes the FAIR Plan link: it describes the DIC policy as carrying “a negative endorsement that removes from coverage the perils that are covered by the California FAIR Plan Basic Property Insurance Policy, including, but not limited to the perils of fire and wildfire”. The form matters: it is the FAIR Plan's Basic Property Insurance Policy — a specific policy form — not the FAIR Plan as an institution. Reading that alongside the recital, the premium was charged for a peril the FAIR Plan half already covered and the wrap excluded — our reading, drawn from two paragraphs of the order rather than stated in one |
| What the Department alleged was violated | California Insurance Code section 1861.05(a), the prohibition on excessive and potentially unfairly discriminatory rates. Note the word alleged: the order records that the Department alleges this |
| What Farmers said | The order records that Farmers “denies the allegations contained in the Notice of Noncompliance and denies that it has in any way acted in violation of California insurance law”, and that by entering the agreement it “makes no admission of liability, wrongdoing or violation of law”. A consent order is a settlement, not a finding of guilt |
| What was ordered | Refund of the fire and wildfire premium on DIC policies issued or renewed 8 April 2023 through 24 March 2024. Refunds may be issued as credits against future premium, as checks, or a combination |
| What had to stop, and when | Cease charging any premium for fire and wildfire perils on DIC policies issued or renewing on or after 25 March 2024 — the trigger is issuance or renewal, not the calendar date alone |
| Where the order says the refund money comes back from | The rate base — on the order's face. Nothing we have read establishes that a recoupment filing has been made, approved or performed, and ¶ 15 is expressly “subject to Department prior review and approval”. So this describes the mechanism the order provides, not a completed transfer — our reading on that last point. ¶ 15: Farmers “will recoup the aggregate level of rate corresponding to the premium refunds described in paragraph 14.b. in its current rate filing or a subsequent rate filing, subject to Department prior review and approval in compliance with the provisions of Proposition 103”. ¶ 15.b limits the adjustment to base rates “for a period of no more than one year”, and ¶ 15.d says “The recoupment shall equal the total amount of refunds paid” |
| And it is invisible in the headline rate number | ¶ 15.c has two sentences and both matter. First: “The Department will treat the recoupment as rate neutral assuming Respondent's rate filing confirms that the recoupment offsets the refunds paid out.” That is conditional, and this row dropped the condition for several hours on 27 August 2026. Second: “The Parties agree the recoupment adjustment will not impact or be reflected in the rate increase percentage stated in the public notice or the amount of rate requested or approved in the rate filing submission.” So a policyholder reading a public notice about a Farmers rate change would not see the recoupment in the percentage quoted — which is why it belongs on this page. |
| What stops it running on — and which paragraph actually does it | The cap is ¶ 15.d: “The recoupment shall equal the total amount of refunds paid.” That is the operative limit. ¶ 17 is the receipt, not the cap: once recoupment is concluded Farmers must give the Department “a written accounting showing that (1) recoupment has ceased, and (2) the total recoupment has not exceeded the total refunds given”. ¶ 16 separately requires an accounting of all refunds paid within 90 days of adoption. For several hours on 27 August 2026 this page called ¶ 17 the cap, which would have given a reader an enforcement mechanism where the order gives a report |
| Which company it binds | Farmers Insurance Exchange only. It is the sole respondent, and the obligations run to it. The Farmers group writes homeowners through several separate legal entities and the order does not impose duties on them. The entity name on your declarations page is what decides whether the refund obligation applies to you |
| But the recoupment runs through three filings, not one | Read footnote 1. ¶ 15.a lets Farmers seek recoupment “either through amendment to Respondent's current rate filing” — and the footnote on that phrase identifies the filings as Farmers Insurance Exchange 24-634, Fire Insurance Exchange 24-634-A and Mid-Century Insurance Company 24-634-B. So the obligation is one company's; the vehicle for recovering the money named in the order spans three. We added the recoupment paragraphs on 27 August 2026 and skipped the one sub-paragraph carrying the entity information, on a page whose third section is entirely about entity identity |
| Order date | 16 May 2024 |
The refund order, and why it lands on exactly the reader we write for
If a California insurer non-renews you and nobody in the standard market will write the house, the usual destination is the FAIR Plan. A FAIR Plan policy is narrow — it is close to a fire policy — so the standard next step is to buy a difference-in-conditions wrap alongside it, restoring the perils the plan leaves out.
Which makes the department's 2024 recital unusually pointed. It stated that Farmers was “charging a significant premium for the perils of fire and wildfire” on DIC policies that “do not provide coverage for fire and wildfire losses”.
And the same paragraph carries Farmers' answer, which we are not going to leave out. The third sentence of that recital reads: “Respondent asserts that such premium is associated with Respondent's cost of complying with its legal duty to adjust wildfire losses incurred by the California FAIR Plan and was approved under Insurance Code 1861.05.” And where the department alleges the charge violated section 1861.05(a), the order records in terms: “Respondent denies this allegation.” This is a negotiated consent order, and both halves of it are on the record.
Read that alongside how the pairing is supposed to work. The FAIR Plan is the half that covers fire. The wrap exists to cover what the plan does not. So the premium in question was being charged on the one peril the reader already had, by the policy that excluded it — our reading, drawn from two paragraphs of the order rather than stated in either of them, and a proposition Farmers contests, and the table above carries it under the same label.
The order required refunds for policies issued or renewed between 8 April 2023 and 24 March 2024, and required the practice to stop from 25 March 2024. Read the company name on your declarations page before assuming this reaches you: the sole respondent is Farmers Insurance Exchange, and the group writes homeowners through several entities. If you held a Farmers Insurance Exchange DIC policy in that window, there is something specific to check.
Say plainly what that means, because a page that describes only the refund half is telling half a story. The individual policyholder who was charged the premium gets their money back. The order then provides for that money to be recovered across the rate base over a period of up to a year — capped at the total refunded, subject to the department's prior review and approval under Proposition 103, and not shown in the percentage a public notice states.
Two cautions on how we have put that. The order says Farmers “will recoup”, so the undertaking is mandatory in form — but it is a forward undertaking conditioned on department approval, and we have not established that any recoupment filing has been made, approved or performed. Read the above as the mechanism the order sets up, not as a completed transfer. And the conclusion that this is not, at the level of the whole book, money the insurer absorbed is our reading of paragraphs 14 to 17 together, not a statement made in any one of them. Chase your refund either way: it is your money, and paragraph 15.d caps recoupment at what was actually paid out.
| What changed | The department's words | What it might mean for you |
|---|---|---|
| Monthly caps on new business | “While Farmers never stopped writing in California, the company has entirely eliminated its monthly cap for new homeowners business” | Capacity limits are the usual reason an insurer declines a property it would otherwise write. If you were turned away while caps were in force, the answer may now be different |
| Wildfire-area outreach | Farmers “has been making good on its pledge to market to at least 300,000 policyholders in wildfire distressed areas, where the FAIR Plan has become the only option for many”. Note it is a pledge being made good on, not a completed program | Being in a wildfire-exposed area is not automatically disqualifying to this insurer at present |
| How big the cap actually was | Not stated in the department's alert. Farmers' own announcement of 21 November 2025 says that “prior to today's announcement, Farmers homeowners offerings had been capped at 9,500 new policies per month” | That is the number that was limiting you if you were declined for capacity rather than for your property |
| And what else Farmers filed at the same time | A separate action, in the same announcement. The cap removal was “effective immediately” in November 2025; “In addition, Farmers has filed a new rating plan”, and “The filing, which requests a 6.99% average statewide rate increase”. Two things, not one — the company's own headline says remove the cap and submit a rating plan | The cap came off immediately in November 2025. The rating plan was a separate filing, and it was not approved until May 2026. Reports that run the two together make the capacity look contingent on the rate rise. It was not |
| And what the department actually approved | Farmers announced on 11 May 2026 that it “has been granted approval by the California Department of Insurance to introduce a new homeowners insurance rating plan”, and that “the new homeowners insurance rating plan will adjust rates upwards by a statewide average of 1.5%. However, new or existing customers who choose to bundle will generally experience decreasing rates.” It takes effect “September 15, 2026, for new and existing customers with Smart Plan Home or Next Generation Home policies” | 1.5%, not the 6.99% requested. If you have read the higher number somewhere, that is the November 2025 request and not what was approved. Note also that the effective date is still ahead of us, and the plan names two products rather than every Farmers homeowners policy |
| The framing | Announced as part of commitments under the state's Sustainable Insurance Strategy | It is a stated commitment to a regulator, not a rule you can enforce. Worth acting on; not worth relying on |
Dropped, denied, or holding a notice you do not understand? Call us. We will read the letter with you, tell you which clock you are on and what your state requires your insurer to do — then put you in touch with a licensed agent who can quote you and write the policy.
Call (866) 754-7910Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm ET (6am to 2pm PT). We are not an insurance agency and we do not sell policies. Call and we will help you make sense of what you have been sent — then put you in touch with a licensed agent — the one person who can actually quote you and write a policy. We hold no insurance license, so we cannot quote you, recommend an insurer, or advise you on your own policy.And then the capacity cap came off
The other half of the California record runs the other way, and it is worth knowing if you were turned down at any point in the last few years.
In a consumer alert dated 12 May 2026, the department said: “While Farmers never stopped writing in California, the company has entirely eliminated its monthly cap for new homeowners business.” It added that Farmers “has been making good on its pledge to market to at least 300,000 policyholders in wildfire distressed areas, where the FAIR Plan has become the only option for many”.
That second half is the department's characterization, and the underlying commitment is worded differently. Farmers' own announcement of 21 November 2025 says the company will “begin marketing directly to approximately 300,000 consumers in the distressed areas”. Three differences worth having: approximately rather than at least; consumers rather than policyholders, and most of those consumers are not Farmers customers; and a commitment to begin marketing, which is not the same as a regulator's assessment that the company “has been making good” on it. We flag this because this site has been caught once already relying on a regulator's summary where the underlying document said something narrower.
Monthly caps are the quiet reason a great many applications get declined: not the property, but the fact that the insurer had already written its allocation that month. If that was your experience, the answer today may be a different one — and being in a wildfire-exposed area is evidently not disqualifying to this insurer at present.
The size of the cap, which the department's alert never gives you. Farmers' own announcement says that “prior to today's announcement, Farmers homeowners offerings had been capped at 9,500 new policies per month”. Read that as a combined ceiling rather than a house-policy allocation: the same announcement applies the decision to Smart Plan Home, Smart Plan Condominium and Smart Plan Renters together, so the number available for houses alone was smaller by an amount the company does not state.
And the price, which took another six months to settle. The November 2025 announcement describes a separate filing — “In addition, Farmers has filed a new rating plan” — as one “which requests a 6.99% average statewide rate increase”. On 11 May 2026 Farmers announced that it “has been granted approval by the California Department of Insurance” for that plan, and that it “will adjust rates upwards by a statewide average of 1.5%. However, new or existing customers who choose to bundle will generally experience decreasing rates.” It takes effect “September 15, 2026” for Smart Plan Home and Next Generation Home policies — a date still ahead of this update.
Two cautions. It is a commitment made to a regulator, not a rule you can enforce, and none of it guarantees any particular property will be quoted. And it is dated: commitments of this kind are revisited. Treat it as a reason to ask again, not as an assurance.
| Point | What the examination report states |
|---|---|
| The exchanges are reciprocals | Farmers Insurance Exchange, Fire Insurance Exchange and Truck Insurance Exchange “are reciprocal insurers organized under California Insurance Code (CIC) Section § 1300 et. Seq.” You are a subscriber, not a shareholder's customer |
| Someone else runs them | Farmers Group, Inc. is the attorney-in-fact for Farmers Insurance Exchange; the Fire and Truck Underwriters Associations are attorneys-in-fact for the other two and are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Farmers Group, Inc. |
| And it is owned abroad | “FGI, which is a wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary of Zurich Insurance Group Ltd. (Zurich), a Swiss holding company” |
| Homeowners sits across several entities | The examination covers Farmers Insurance Exchange, Fire, Truck, Mid-Century, Civic, Exact, Neighborhood Spirit and Farmers Reinsurance. Note the date: the report records that as of May 2022 Civic, Exact and Neighborhood Spirit ceased offering new direct policies covering California residential property, so a present-tense reading of that list would be wrong |
| The MetLife acquisition | The report describes the purchase of MetLife's property and casualty business — agreement dated 11 December 2020, closed 7 April 2021 — but the entities acquired with it are outside the scope of this examination. We previously implied the report identified them as homeowners writers within the examined group. It does not |
| Why any of this matters | The entity on your declarations page determines which filings, which rates and which notices apply to you. Two neighbors both “with Farmers” can be with different companies on different rates — our reading of what the structure implies, not a statement in the report |
Who you are actually insured by
This is the part that surprises people, and it is on the public record because the department examined it.
The Farmers exchanges are reciprocal insurers. That means the policyholders are subscribers who insure one another, and the business is run by an attorney-in-fact — Farmers Group, Inc. — which is itself “a wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary of Zurich Insurance Group Ltd.”
Homeowners business is spread across several legal entities. The report also describes the 2021 purchase of MetLife's property and casualty business, but places the entities acquired with it outside the scope of the examination — so we cannot say from this document that they write homeowners inside the examined group. The practical consequence is worth a moment: the name on the marketing is not necessarily the company on your policy, and the company on your policy is what determines which rate filings and which notices apply to you.
| Step | What to look for |
|---|---|
| 1 | Find the entity name and policy period on your declarations page. The refund window is policies issued or renewed 8 April 2023 through 24 March 2024 |
| 2 | Check whether a fire or wildfire premium line appears on a DIC policy for that period |
| 3 | Look for a credit against a later renewal — the order permits refunds as credits rather than checks, so it may not have arrived as a payment |
| 4 | If you cannot find either, ask. The order required an accounting to the department; your agent should be able to say how it was applied to you |
| 5 | If you are not satisfied, the California Department of Insurance takes consumer complaints and it is the body that made the order |
What to check
Nothing here is advice about your policy and we have not seen your documents. If the refund window above overlaps a DIC policy you held, these are the things worth looking at.
Corrections to this page (24)
We publish these rather than editing quietly. Our corrections policy explains how we handle errors.
- — The answer block, a takeaway and the body all described the refund order at brand level. It binds Farmers Insurance Exchange only — the sole respondent — and the group writes homeowners through several entities. We published a correction saying exactly this on 23 August; it reached the table and one FAQ and stopped, so on a page naming a real company the three most-quoted surfaces still told every Farmers-group DIC policyholder they were owed a refund.
- — Two surfaces dated the removal of the new-business cap to May 2026. Farmers announced it on 21 November 2025, effective immediately; the May 2026 department alert is the regulator reporting on it. The correct date was in the table and the flag box and in neither the answer block nor the takeaway — and this page's whole call to action is aimed at readers deciding whether their own decline predates the change.
- — A table caption still described May 2026 as Farmers “reopening”. We changed the page title on 27 August precisely because the department's own sentence opens by saying Farmers never stopped writing in California. The correction reached the title and the section heading and not the caption, which is what a screen reader announces as the table's identity.
- — We printed a superseded rate figure and a false negative. Having added the November 2025 figure of 6.99%, we described it as the price the cap removal was filed with and said we could locate no document giving an approved figure. Farmers announced approval on 11 May 2026 — “a statewide average of 1.5%”, effective 15 September 2026 — on the same newsroom this page already cited twice. We searched the regulator's indexes and not the company's, then published a does-not-exist claim on the strength of it. The approved figure is now on the page and the request is labeled as a request.
- — We wrote that the monthly cap “came off in a filing that also asked for more rate”. It did not: Farmers' announcement says the cap removal was “effective immediately” in November 2025 and that “In addition” a new rating plan was filed — two separate actions, and the rating plan was not approved until May 2026. Our own flag box four paragraphs earlier said “effective immediately”, so the page contradicted itself inside one section.
- — We quoted the second sentence of ¶ 15.c and summarised the first as “The Department agreed to treat it as rate neutral”. The first sentence is conditional: rate-neutral treatment assumes “Respondent's rate filing confirms that the recoupment offsets the refunds paid out”. Dropping a condition from a sentence is the defect this page spends most of its length documenting.
- — We called ¶ 17 the cap on recoupment. It is not — it is an accounting Farmers must provide after recoupment concludes. The cap is ¶ 15.d: “The recoupment shall equal the total amount of refunds paid.” Naming the wrong paragraph points a reader at a receipt when they want a limit.
- — We stated the recoupment as accomplished fact (“the money is then recovered across the rate base”) when ¶ 15 is a forward undertaking “subject to Department prior review and approval”, and we have not established that any recoupment filing was made or approved. The our reading label sat on the softer inference and not on the harder ones. Both fixed.
- — We omitted footnote 1 to ¶ 15.a, which identifies the recoupment filings as Farmers Insurance Exchange 24-634, Fire Insurance Exchange 24-634-A and Mid-Century Insurance Company 24-634-B — two of them entities this page tells readers the order does not reach. The obligation really is Farmers Insurance Exchange's alone; the filings named are three. On a page whose third section is about entity identity, that was the sub-paragraph not to skip.
- — We quoted the 9,500-per-month cap without saying it was a combined ceiling. The same announcement applies the decision to Smart Plan Home, Smart Plan Condominium and Smart Plan Renters, so the allocation available for houses alone was smaller by an amount Farmers does not state.
- — We described the refund and never said where the money comes back from. Paragraph 15 of the order has Farmers “recoup the aggregate level of rate corresponding to the premium refunds” through a rate filing, adjusting base rates “for a period of no more than one year”, in an amount that “shall equal the total amount of refunds paid”; paragraph 15.c records the parties' agreement that this “will not impact or be reflected in the rate increase percentage stated in the public notice”. Paragraph 17 caps and accounts for it. None of that was on the page. It is the most useful thing in the order for a reader deciding what the refund actually means, and we had quoted six other paragraphs of the same document.
- — We reported that the monthly cap on new business came off, without ever saying how big the cap was or what was filed alongside it. Farmers' own announcement of 21 November 2025 gives both: offerings “had been capped at 9,500 new policies per month”, and the filing is one “which requests a 6.99% average statewide rate increase”. We print no approved figure sourced to the department, because we found no California Department of Insurance document stating an approved percentage for that filing.
- — Our answer block, a key takeaway and an FAQ said the department found that Farmers charged wildfire premium on policies excluding the peril. The order itself records at ¶ 10 that no factual findings or legal conclusions were made, and at ¶ 11 that Farmers denies the allegations. We had corrected this in the table and the body text on 23 August and left it standing on four other surfaces.
- — Our page title said “A Reopened Market”. The body of this page flags that framing as one the department expressly denies in the first clause of its own sentence. The title now says what actually changed: a lifted cap.
- — The market table quoted the department as “The company has entirely eliminated its monthly cap…” — the second half of a sentence, with a silently capitalized opening. The full sentence begins “While Farmers never stopped writing in California”. This page's own quotation registry had recorded that truncation as corrected while the table still carried it.
- — An FAQ said the department reported Farmers “was marketing to” 300,000 policyholders. The alert says Farmers “has been making good on its pledge to market to” them. We had already published a correction saying exactly this, and then left the old wording in the FAQ.
- — An FAQ and a section said the examination report identified homeowners business at entities acquired with MetLife's property and casualty business. The report places those entities outside the scope of the examination. Corrected in the structure table on 23 August; missed on both other surfaces.
- — Our methodology block cited the examination report as Report of Examination of the Farmers Insurance Group. That is the regulator's filename, not a title the document carries — a point the table on this page already made.
- — A paragraph asserted flatly that the premium was charged on the one peril the reader already had. That is our inference from two paragraphs of the order, it is a proposition Farmers contests, and the table labeled it our reading while the prose did not. It is now labeled in both places.
- — A table header displayed raw italic markup to readers as visible text, angle brackets and all, because table headers are text fields the template escapes. Fixed, and the build gate now fails on escaped markup anywhere in rendered text. (We have deliberately not reproduced the offending string here — printing it would trip the very check that now catches it.)
- — We stated that California Insurance Code section 1861.05(a) was violated. The consent order records that the Department alleges it, and that Farmers denies the allegations and makes no admission of liability, wrongdoing or violation of law. We had omitted the denial entirely. A consent order is a settlement, not a finding.
- — We quoted the department as saying Farmers was “marketing to” at least 300,000 policyholders. The alert says Farmers “has been making good on its pledge to market to” them — a pledge in progress, not a completed program.
- — We described the refund order at brand level. It binds Farmers Insurance Exchange only, which is one of several entities writing homeowners in the group.
- — We cited the examination report by the regulator's filename rather than its title, and implied it identified MetLife-acquired entities as homeowners writers within the examined group. It does not. We also listed three entities without noting the report records them as having ceased new California residential business in May 2022.
How we researched this
The consent order material is quoted from the California Department of Insurance's Settlement Stipulation and Consent Order, Farmers Insurance Exchange, File No. NC-2024-00007, dated 16 May 2024, read against the order itself on 23 August 2026. The 2026 market material is quoted from the department's consumer alert of 12 May 2026. The corporate structure is from the department's report of examination covering Farmers Insurance Exchange, Fire Insurance Exchange, Truck Insurance Exchange and five affiliated companies, examination as of 31 December 2021, report dated 26 September 2023. We do not give that report a title. “Farmers Insurance Group” is the regulator's filename, not a title the document carries, and citing a filename as a title is how a reader ends up searching for a document that does not exist.
The consent order was re-read from the PDF's own text layer on 27 August 2026, not from any summary of it, after an audit found this page described the refund without ever mentioning that paragraph 15 lets Farmers recoup it from the rate base. The order is a scan and its text layer carries OCR damage in places; every passage quoted here was read in that layer and the words are unambiguous on the page. The cap size and the requested rate figure are quoted from Farmers' own announcement of 21 November 2025, and the approved figure from the company's announcement of 11 May 2026, both read on 27 August 2026.
An account of how we got the rate wrong, because it is instructive. For several hours on 27 August 2026 this page printed the 6.99% requested figure as the price of the cap removal and stated that no approved figure could be located. Farmers had announced the approval — a statewide average of 1.5%, effective 15 September 2026 — on its own newsroom on 11 May 2026, on the same site this page already cited twice for other sentences. The search behind that claim covered the department's press-release and consumer-alert indexes and did not cover the company's newsroom, and the claim was published anyway. We still print no figure sourced to the department, because we found no California Department of Insurance document stating an approved percentage for that filing; the figures above are the company's own and labeled as such.
The Florida exit is deliberately absent. The 2023 departure of Farmers-branded Florida policies is the single most-cited fact about this insurer and we could not confirm it against a Florida Office of Insurance Regulation order, a statutory withdrawal notice, or a Farmers announcement — only against trade and news reporting. A page whose central claim rests on secondary reporting is the kind of page we spend the rest of this site arguing against, so it is not here.
We assessed four large insurers for a page of this kind and built two. The other three — Allstate, Liberty Mutual and USAA — did not have enough distinct, primary-sourced material about their homeowners business to sustain one, and pages that differ only by the name of the insurer are not worth reading. Where we could not verify, we did not publish.
We are not affiliated with Farmers Insurance. Naming a company to describe what a regulator has published about it is ordinary factual reference. We do not use their marks, do not imply a relationship, and do not rate, rank or review them or any other insurer. If you find an error, our corrections policy explains how we handle it.
Sources
Every passage this page puts in quotation marks, with the document it came from, the part of that document, and the date we read it. 25 quotations from 5 documents. Follow the links and check us. Statutes are amended and pages move; if one of these is wrong or dead, our corrections policy says how we handle it.
Report of Examination as of 31 Dec 2021 — https://www.insurance.ca.gov/0250-insurers/0300-insurers/0400-reports-examination/upload/Farmers-Insurance-Group-Consolidated-Exam-Report-Final-as-of-12-2021-ADA.pdf
FGI, which is a wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary of Zurich Insurance Group Ltd. (Zurich), a Swiss holding company
Report of Examination as of 31 Dec 2021 — MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL, p.11 Retrieved 24 August 2026.
are reciprocal insurers organized under California Insurance Code (CIC) Section § 1300 et. Seq.
Report of Examination as of 31 Dec 2021 — MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL, p.11 Retrieved 24 August 2026.
CDI consumer alert, 12 May 2026 — https://www.insurance.ca.gov/0400-news/0102-alerts/2026/California-s-second-largest-home-insurer.cfm
While Farmers never stopped writing in California, the company has entirely eliminated its monthly cap for new homeowners business.
CDI consumer alert, 12 May 2026 — body, the sentence IN FULL. An earlier entry began at 'the company', dropping the clause in which the department denies that the market had closed at all Retrieved 24 August 2026.
Farmers has been making good on its pledge to market to at least 300,000 policyholders in wildfire distressed areas, where the FAIR Plan has become the only option for many.
CDI consumer alert, 12 May 2026 — body. THIS IS THE DEPARTMENT'S CHARACTERIZATION, NOT FARMERS' COMMITMENT, and the page now says so in the text. Farmers' own announcement of 21 Nov 2025 says it will 'begin marketing directly to approximately 300,000 consumers in the distressed areas'. Three differences: 'at least' (a floor) versus 'approximately' (an estimate); 'policyholders' versus 'consumers', who are largely NOT Farmers policyholders; and 'has been making good' is a performance assertion about a commitment that was only to BEGIN marketing Retrieved 24 August 2026.
Farmers Insurance newsroom announcement, 21 Nov 2025 — https://newsroom.farmers.com/2025-11-21-In-Major-Move-to-Expand-Growth,-Farmers-Insurance-R-to-Remove-Cap-on-Writing-New-Homeowners-Insurance-Policies-in-California-and-Submits-New-Rating-Plan
begin marketing directly to approximately 300,000 consumers in the distressed areas
Farmers Insurance newsroom announcement, 21 Nov 2025 — the company's own statement of the commitment the CDI alert above describes Retrieved 24 August 2026.
prior to today's announcement, Farmers homeowners offerings had been capped at 9,500 new policies per month
Farmers Insurance newsroom announcement, 21 Nov 2025 — body. THE SIZE OF THE CAP, which neither this page nor the department's alert ever stated Retrieved 27 August 2026.
In addition, Farmers has filed a new rating plan
Farmers Insurance newsroom announcement, 21 Nov 2025 — body. THE WORDS 'In addition'. They are the reason the cap removal and the rating plan are two actions and not one, which this page briefly got wrong Retrieved 27 August 2026.
The filing, which requests a 6.99% average statewide rate increase
Farmers Insurance newsroom announcement, 21 Nov 2025 — body, the opening of the sentence. THE FIGURE ORIGINALLY REQUESTED, in November 2025. Note 'requests'. It is NOT the approved figure and this page briefly printed it as though it were the price of the cap removal; the approval, at a statewide average of 1.5%, is quoted above Retrieved 27 August 2026.
Settlement Stipulation and Consent Order NC-2024-00007 — https://www.insurance.ca.gov/0250-insurers/0500-legal-info/0700-commissioners-orders/upload/Settlement-Stipulation-Consent-Order-Farmers-Insurance-Exchange-NC-2024-00007.pdf
Respondent's DIC policy is written as a homeowner's policy with a negative endorsement that removes from coverage the perils that are covered by the California FAIR Plan Basic Property Insurance Policy, including, but not limited to the perils of fire and wildfire.
Settlement Stipulation and Consent Order NC-2024-00007 — ¶ 4, quoted to the end of the sentence. An earlier version cut at 'California FAIR Plan', which turned the FAIR PLAN'S BASIC PROPERTY INSURANCE POLICY — a specific policy form — into the FAIR Plan itself, an institution, and dropped the enumeration of the perils Retrieved 24 August 2026.
After investigation, the Department has concluded that Respondent is charging a significant premium for the perils of fire and wildfire.
Consent Order NC-2024-00007 — ¶ 5, first sentence (a RECITAL, not a finding after hearing) Retrieved 24 August 2026.
Respondent's DIC policies do not provide coverage for fire and wildfire losses.
Consent Order NC-2024-00007 — ¶ 5, second sentence Retrieved 24 August 2026.
Respondent asserts that such premium is associated with Respondent's cost of complying with its legal duty to adjust wildfire losses incurred by the California FAIR Plan and was approved under Insurance Code 1861.05.
Consent Order NC-2024-00007 — ¶ 5, THIRD sentence. An earlier version of this page quoted the first two sentences of a three-sentence recital and stopped exactly where the carrier's answer begins. On a page that names a real carrier, that is not a trim, it is a slant Retrieved 24 August 2026.
Respondent denies this allegation.
Consent Order NC-2024-00007 — ¶ 6, final sentence, immediately following the Department's allegation of a section 1861.05(a) violation Retrieved 24 August 2026.
Other than as set forth in this Stipulation, the Parties agree no factual findings or legal conclusions have been made.
Consent Order NC-2024-00007 — ¶ 10, the whole paragraph. Read from the PDF's own text layer on 27 Aug 2026, not from any summary of it. This is why nothing on this page may say the Department 'found' anything Retrieved 27 August 2026.
Respondent will recoup the aggregate level of rate corresponding to the premium refunds described in paragraph 14.b. in its current rate filing or a subsequent rate filing, subject to Department prior review and approval in compliance with the provisions of Proposition 103.
Consent Order NC-2024-00007 — ¶ 15, first sentence. The PDF is a scan and its text layer renders 'current' and 'rate' with OCR damage; the words are unambiguous on the page and are given here as they read Retrieved 27 August 2026.
Respondent will adjust its base rates for a period of no more than one year to account for this recoupment.
Consent Order NC-2024-00007 — ¶ 15.b Retrieved 27 August 2026.
The Parties agree the recoupment adjustment will not impact or be reflected in the rate increase percentage stated in the public notice or the amount of rate requested or approved in the rate filing submission.
Consent Order NC-2024-00007 — ¶ 15.c, second sentence. THE PARAGRAPH THAT MATTERS MOST TO A READER: the recoupment does not appear in the percentage the public notice states Retrieved 27 August 2026.
The recoupment shall equal the total amount of refunds paid.
Consent Order NC-2024-00007 — ¶ 15.d Retrieved 27 August 2026.
Once Respondent has concluded recoupment of the refunds pursuant to paragraph 15 above, Respondent shall provide to the Department a written accounting showing that (1) recoupment has ceased, and (2) the total recoupment has not exceeded the total refunds given.
Consent Order NC-2024-00007 — ¶ 17, the whole paragraph. The cap on recoupment and the accounting that enforces it Retrieved 27 August 2026.
The Department will treat the recoupment as rate neutral assuming Respondent's rate filing confirms that the recoupment offsets the refunds paid out.
Consent Order NC-2024-00007 — ¶ 15.c, FIRST sentence. The page quoted only the second sentence and paraphrased this one without its condition. The text layer renders 'Department' and 'confirms' with OCR damage ('Depmtment', 'confinns'); the words are unambiguous on the page Retrieved 27 August 2026.
Respondent denies the allegations contained in the Notice of Noncompliance and denies that it has in any way acted in violation of California insurance law.
Consent Order NC-2024-00007 — ¶ 11, first sentence Retrieved 24 August 2026.
By entering into this stipulated agreement, Respondent makes no admission of liability, wrongdoing or violation of law.
Consent Order NC-2024-00007 — ¶ 11, second sentence Retrieved 24 August 2026.
Farmers Insurance newsroom announcement, 11 May 2026 — https://newsroom.farmers.com/2026-05-11-Farmers-Insurance-R-Receives-Approval-for-New-Homeowners-Insurance-Rating-Plan-in-California,-Includes-Sizable-22-Home-Auto-Package-Discount
has been granted approval by the California Department of Insurance to introduce a new homeowners insurance rating plan
Farmers Insurance newsroom announcement, 11 May 2026 — opening paragraph. THE APPROVAL, which this page asserted it could not find Retrieved 27 August 2026.
the new homeowners insurance rating plan will adjust rates upwards by a statewide average of 1.5%. However, new or existing customers who choose to bundle will generally experience decreasing rates.
Farmers Insurance newsroom announcement, 11 May 2026 — body, both sentences. THE APPROVED FIGURE. The second sentence is quoted with the first because omitting it would leave a reader with a rise and no offset Retrieved 27 August 2026.
Effective September 15, 2026, for new and existing customers with Smart Plan Home or Next Generation Home policies
Farmers Insurance newsroom announcement, 11 May 2026 — body. The effective date is in the FUTURE as at this page's update, and the plan reaches two named products, not every Farmers homeowners policy Retrieved 27 August 2026.
What we could not find
This page makes 1 claim that something does not exist. That is the one kind of claim you cannot check by following a link, because there is no document to link to — so here is the search behind each one, and what we opened. Not finding something is not a finding. If you know of a source we missed, our corrections policy says how to tell us.
“we found no California Department of Insurance document stating an approved percentage for that filing”
Where we looked 27 August 2026.
- Read the CDI consumer alert of 12 May 2026 announcing the cap removal, in full, for any stated rate percentage attributable to Farmers
- Searched the department's 2026 press-release index and its 2026 consumer-alert index separately for any Farmers rate, refund or filing document
What we actually opened
- CDI consumer alert, 12 May 2026 - states no rate percentage for Farmers. The only percentages on the page are a FAIR Plan growth figure and an industry-wide figure, neither of which is a Farmers rate. It does say the filings were 'just approved today', so approval is not in doubt - only the percentage
- NOT SEARCHED, and this is the limit of the claim: the department's own rate-filing database. A figure may well be recorded there. This says we did not find one in the documents named, never that none exists
- AND THE CLAIM AS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN WAS WORSE THAN INCOMPLETE. Until an audit caught it on 27 Aug 2026 this page said no approved figure could be located anywhere and printed the November 2025 REQUESTED figure as the price. Farmers' own newsroom had published the approval, at a statewide average of 1.5%, on 11 May 2026 - on the same site this page already cited twice. We searched the regulator's indexes and not the company's
Frequently asked questions
Are you Farmers, or connected to them?
No. We are a private, currently advertising-free website with no relationship to Farmers — not their agent, not affiliated, not endorsed. We cannot access your policy, change it or reinstate it. To reach Farmers, use the contact details on your own policy documents.
Am I owed a refund on a Farmers DIC policy?
Possibly — but check the entity first. The order binds Farmers Insurance Exchange only, not every company in the Farmers group, and it covers California DIC policies issued or renewed between 8 April 2023 and 24 March 2024. The consent order of 16 May 2024 required Farmers to refund premium charged for fire and wildfire perils on difference-in-conditions policies, and allowed the refund to be made as a credit against future premium rather than a payment — so it may not have arrived as a check. Check your declarations page for the entity and policy period first.
If Farmers refunds me, who ends up paying for it?
The order is explicit, and it is worth knowing before you decide how you feel about the refund. Paragraph 15 has Farmers “recoup the aggregate level of rate corresponding to the premium refunds” through a rate filing, adjusting base rates “for a period of no more than one year”, in an amount that “shall equal the total amount of refunds paid” — subject to the department's prior review and approval under Proposition 103. Paragraph 15.c adds that the recoupment “will not impact or be reflected in the rate increase percentage stated in the public notice”. Paragraph 15.d is the cap; paragraph 17 requires Farmers to account afterwards that recoupment has ceased and has not exceeded the refunds given. So, on the order's face: you get your money back, and the order provides for the cost to be recovered across the book, capped and time-limited. We have not established that any recoupment filing has been made or approved, so treat that as the mechanism rather than a completed fact. Chase your refund either way — it is your money, and 15.d caps recoupment at the total actually paid out.
What is a DIC policy and why does this matter?
A difference-in-conditions policy is a wrap bought alongside a FAIR Plan policy to supply the perils the plan does not cover — commonly water damage, theft and liability. It is the standard destination for someone who has been non-renewed. The department's recital was that fire and wildfire premium was being charged on DIC policies that did not cover fire or wildfire, which is the peril the FAIR Plan half already covers. It is a recital in a settlement, not a finding after a hearing — Farmers denies it.
Does the 2026 announcement mean Farmers will insure my house?
It means capacity is no longer the obstacle it was. The department reported that Farmers had entirely eliminated its monthly cap for new homeowners business and “has been making good on its pledge to market to” at least 300,000 policyholders in wildfire-distressed areas — a pledge in progress, in the department's words, not a completed program. That is a commitment made to a regulator, not an enforceable rule, and no announcement guarantees any individual property will be quoted. It is a reason to ask again, particularly if you were declined while caps were in force.
Why does it matter which Farmers company my policy is with?
Because rates and filings are made by legal entity, not by brand. The department's examination report identifies homeowners business across several entities. (The report describes the 2021 purchase of MetLife's property and casualty business but places the acquired entities outside the scope of the examination — it does not identify them as homeowners writers.) Two households both insured "with Farmers" can be with different companies on different filings. The entity name is on your declarations page.
What about Farmers leaving Florida?
We have deliberately left it off this page. It is the most widely repeated Farmers fact and we could not verify it against a Florida regulator order, a statutory withdrawal notice, or a company announcement — only against news reporting. Everything else on this page is quoted from a primary document, and we would rather have a gap than a claim we cannot stand behind.