First, what this page is
We are not State Farm, and we have no relationship with State Farm. We are a private, currently advertising-free website. We are not their agent, not affiliated with them, not endorsed by them, and we cannot access, change, reinstate or appeal your policy. If you need to reach State Farm you should use the contact details on your own policy documents.
What we can do is set out what is on the public record about them where a regulator has published something, show you how to check the rest yourself, and explain what happens next when any insurer non-renews you.
And we will be plain about the limit of that. No insurer publishes a consumer-facing statement of its underwriting rules, and there is no national public database of them. A few states go further than that — Missouri requires guidelines to be filed and treats them as public records, Texas requires residential property guidelines to be filed, and California has held that underwriting rules submitted with a rate application are open to inspection — so the rules are not always invisible, they are just not where a consumer would look. Pages that state a named insurer's roof-age cut-off without citing that filing are guessing.
| Question you want answered | Can it be established? |
|---|---|
| Is my policy being non-renewed lawfully? | Partly. Your state sets the notice period and usually requires a stated reason. Those are checkable against your state's statute and your notice |
| What is their complaint record? | Yes. Published per insurer by state regulators and through the NAIC's consumer lookup. How to read it is below, including what it does not mean |
| Are they licensed in my state, and financially sound? | Yes. Your state department of insurance publishes license status; financial strength ratings are published by the rating agencies |
| Have they announced a market action where I live? | Sometimes. Where a regulator has opened a proceeding or an insurer has filed a withdrawal, it is on the public record. California's is unusually well documented; most states publish far less |
| What is their roof-age cut-off? | Not from the insurer. No insurer publishes a consumer-facing roof-age rule and there is no national public database. But some states do collect guidelines and make them inspectable — Missouri requires filing and treats them as public records, Texas requires residential property guidelines to be filed, and California has held that underwriting rules filed with a rate application are open to public inspection. A site quoting a specific insurer's roof-age rule without naming that filing is guessing |
| Will they write my house? | No. Appetite varies by state, by ZIP code, by construction and by month. An agent who can run it is the only way to find out |
| Are they good? | Not by us. We do not rate, rank or review insurers anywhere on this site |
| What | The published position | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Emergency interim rate — homeowners | +17.0%, unchanged by the settlement | Adopted in 2025 following an administrative law judge's ruling |
| What the stipulation actually says | State Farm agrees to “refrain from making any new block non-renewals during 2026 with respect to the homeowners policy forms covered by this settlement/stipulation” | Read the three limits. Block non-renewals, not individual ones. Homeowners forms, not all lines. During 2026, so about four months from now — not a year |
| What it does not do | It does not bar an individual non-renewal, and it does not bar cancellation — the word cancellation appears in the stipulation only in a carve-out preserving cancellation under Insurance Code section 676 | If you are holding an individual non-renewal notice, this provision very likely does not protect you. Work to your notice date |
| Separate continuation for fire-affected policies | Far narrower than we first described it. The stipulation continues in force, until the end of 2026, policies “originally slated for nonrenewal in SFG's March, 2024 filing number 24-651 as shown in Exhibit 18 to that filing”. It is that Exhibit 18 list — not every policy in a Palisades or Eaton ZIP code. It also does not extend to policies canceled or non-renewed under Insurance Code section 676 | And the fire-claim limb may not exist at all. The parties asked for a finding that complying would not itself be unfair discrimination under sections 1858 or 1861.05(a), and wrote that the agreement as to that group “is void absent such a finding”. The final order says it “does not make findings on issues unaddressed by the May 7, 2026 Proposed Decision, including the continuation of certain policies and the potential issue of unfair discrimination”. This provision is widely described as the one most likely to help a fire-affected policyholder. Check whether your policy is on the Exhibit 18 list before relying on any of it |
| Status | Commissioner Lara signed the final order on 23 July 2026, adopting the stipulation | The rates and refunds are final, not proposed. The department published no press release announcing it, which is why it is easy to miss — we missed it ourselves. Confirm current status with the department |
| Rental dwelling rate | Reduced from +38% to +32.8% | Refunds with 10% interest back to 1 June 2025. Final under the 23 July 2026 order |
| Condominium rate | Cut from +15.0% to about +5.8% | Refunds with 10% interest back to 1 June 2025. Final under the 23 July 2026 order |
| Renters rate | About +15.65%, slightly above the prior +15.0% interim rate | Final under the 23 July 2026 order |
| An open enforcement matter | We have not opened the underlying document, so we are not stating this as fact. Reporting exists of a May 2026 department action following a market conduct examination of Los Angeles wildfire claims — but this table's source line covers the rate proceeding, not an enforcement matter, and we have no registered quotation for it. Check the department's newsroom before relying on it. Previously stated here as an Accusation and Order to Show Cause | This is an accusation, not a finding. It is before an administrative law judge and nothing has been decided. We include it because this table claims to be the record as at today, and leaving out an open matter would make that false |
| Wildfire survivors | The department announced that State Farm rescinded non-renewals following the Commissioner's call to action, offering renewals to Los Angeles County policyholders pending non-renewal or cancellation | Announced by the department in 2025. Note the county limit — it was not statewide |
What can and cannot be established about an insurer
It is worth being systematic about this, because the difference between the two columns below is the difference between checking something and being told a story.
| Which rule | What the section says | Who it reaches, and for how long |
|---|---|---|
| § 675.1(a)(3) — the total-loss renewal right | The insurer “shall offer, for at least the next two annual renewal periods, but no less than 24 months of coverage from the date of the loss, to renew the policy” where the total loss to the primary insured structure was caused by a disaster | A policyholder whose primary structure was a total loss. The clock runs from the date of the loss, not from your notice and not from the settlement. Both limbs must be met, so whichever runs longer is the one you get. A January 2025 total loss therefore carries protection at least into January 2027 — and normally longer, because two annual renewal periods run past the 24-month mark unless the loss fell exactly on the policy anniversary. 24 months is the floor, not the finish line — do not treat a date you were quoted as the last day |
| What conditions attach to it | The loss must not also have been due to the insured's own negligence, and there must have been no later losses relating to physical or risk changes that make the property uninsurable. The right is subject to the grounds in Insurance Code section 676, subdivisions (a) to (e) | Those section 676 grounds are nonpayment of premium, conviction of a crime increasing a hazard insured against, fraud or material misrepresentation, grossly negligent acts increasing the hazard, and physical changes making the property uninsurable. Nonpayment defeats it — which is the practical reason not to let a policy lapse while you argue |
| While you are rebuilding | Under § 675.1(a)(2) the insurer “shall not cancel coverage while the primary insured structure is being rebuilt”, except on those same section 676 grounds, and may not use the damaged condition of the structure as the sole basis for cancelling | The damaged state of your own house is not, by itself, a lawful reason to cancel you while you rebuild |
| § 675.1(b)(1) — the area moratorium, and why it is probably not yours | “An insurer shall not cancel or refuse to renew a policy of residential property insurance for a property located in any ZIP Code within or adjacent to the fire perimeter, for one year after the declaration of a state of emergency” — and only “based solely on the fact that the insured structure is located in an area in which a wildfire has occurred” | Anyone in a designated ZIP Code, whether or not they lost anything — but it runs one year from the emergency declaration. For the January 2025 Palisades and Eaton declarations that year is already over. We say so rather than leave you to discover it. The Commissioner designates the ZIP Codes by bulletin. Several are in force at once, so do not read any one list as the answer. As at 27 August 2026 the department had at least three live: the TCU September Complex bulletin running from 19 September 2025, the Gifford Fire bulletin from 23 December 2025, and the Gann Fire bulletin from 6 August 2026 — each for one year from the declaration it names. The current list is the department’s bulletins index, and that is what to check, not this page: insurance.ca.gov bulletins. A page that names one bulletin and prints its ZIP Codes will read as complete when it is not — and a reader protected by a different bulletin checks that list, does not find their ZIP Code, and concludes they have nothing |
| And subdivision (c) can switch the moratorium off | “Subdivision (b) does not apply” where (1) willful or grossly negligent acts or omissions by the named insured are discovered that materially increase any of the risks insured against, (2) losses unrelated to the post-disaster loss condition have occurred that would collectively render the risk ineligible for renewal, or (3) there are physical or risk changes beyond the catastrophe-damaged condition that result in the property becoming uninsurable | Three of them, and almost nothing written about the moratorium mentions any. The “based solely on” limiter is not the whole of what it does and does not do. A moratorium is a strong protection with three named exits |
| Why we are telling you this at all | Because the settlement above is a negotiated promise with three limits and an end date, and this is law | If your primary structure was a total loss in a declared disaster, you do not need to be on an Exhibit 18 list, and you do not need the stipulation. Coverage of the settlement almost never names section 675.1, which leaves exactly that reader believing the settlement is all there is |
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.If you are in California, there is an actual public record
California is the exception to almost everything above, because State Farm General has been in an active, documented proceeding before the state's insurance department, and that department publishes its filings and decisions.
The item everyone reaches for is the moratorium, and it is the item most widely reported wrong.
The department's own press release describes it broadly: a moratorium on “homeowners, rental dwelling, condominium, and renters non-renewals and cancellations for at least one additional year”. The stipulation itself says something considerably narrower. Its words are: refrain from making any new block non-renewals during 2026 with respect to the homeowners policy forms covered by the settlement.
Three limits, and each one matters to a different reader. It covers block non-renewals — the mass kind — not an individual non-renewal of your policy. It covers homeowners forms, not the four lines the press release lists. And it runs during 2026, which from today is about four months, not a year. The word cancellation appears in the stipulation only in a carve-out preserving cancellation under Insurance Code section 676.
So if you are holding an individual non-renewal notice, this provision very likely does not protect you. There is a separate and more specific provision that may, and it is narrower than it sounds: the policies on the Exhibit 18 list to filing 24-651 are continued in force until the end of 2026, and a second limb turning on a fire-claim finding is void absent such a finding — a finding the 23 July 2026 final order expressly declined to make. Where it does apply it covers homeowners, renters, condo unit owner and rental dwelling.
Two honest limits on that. The right is subject to the grounds in Insurance Code section 676, subdivisions (a) to (e) — nonpayment of premium among them — so it is not a shield against letting the policy lapse. And it requires that the loss was not also due to your own negligence, and that no later loss has made the property uninsurable.
The separate area-wide moratorium in section 675.1(b)(1) is the one most people have heard of, and for these fires it has expired. It barred cancellation or non-renewal in designated ZIP Codes “for one year after the declaration of a state of emergency”, regardless of whether the policyholder suffered any loss — but only where the reason was solely the property's location in a wildfire area, and subdivision (c) names three circumstances in which it does not apply at all. One year from the January 2025 declarations has run. We would rather tell you that than let you find out from an insurer.
But a fresh declaration starts a fresh year, and more than one runs at a time. As at 27 August 2026 the department had at least three moratorium bulletins live at once, from declarations in September 2025, December 2025 and August 2026, each with its own list of ZIP Codes. Do not take a single list from a web page, including this one. The department publishes the current bulletins at insurance.ca.gov, and that index — not this page — is the answer to whether your ZIP Code is covered today. For part of 27 August 2026 this page named one bulletin and called it the only live one. Three were.
On status: the Commissioner signed the final order on 23 July 2026, adopting the stipulation. The department published no press release announcing it, which is why this page previously said no final decision could be found. That was our error — a search of news releases is not a search of filings. Confirm the current position with the department before relying on any of it.
| Point | What is actually the case |
|---|---|
| The formula | “COMPLAINT INDEX = COMPANY'S COMPLAINTS / COMPANY'S MARKET SHARE” |
| What 1.00 means | “A complaint index of 1.00 means the insurer's share of all complaints received is equal to its share of all the business written” in that state. Above 1.00 is more complaints than size alone would predict; below is fewer |
| Why size is in the denominator | Without it the largest insurer would always look worst. The index is designed to be comparable between a very large insurer and a small one |
| What it does not tell you | The Kansas department's own caution: “Complaint indexes do not tell you everything about a company.” It says nothing about price, coverage breadth, or whether the insurer will write your house |
| Why we publish no number here | It is state-specific and it moves. A figure copied onto a web page goes stale silently, which is the failure mode we refuse everywhere else on this site. Look up the current one yourself |
Reading a complaint index without over-reading it
This is the one genuinely comparable per-insurer number that regulators publish, and it is routinely misused — usually by being quoted as a score.
It is a ratio: complaints divided by market share. Size is in the denominator precisely so that the biggest insurer does not automatically look worst. A value of 1.00 means the insurer's share of complaints matches its share of the business written in that state.
Two cautions. It is state-specific — the same insurer can sit above 1.00 in one state and below it in another. And it measures complaints that reached a regulator, which is a narrow window on a company: Kansas's department puts it plainly, “Complaint indexes do not tell you everything about a company.” It says nothing about price, nothing about coverage, and nothing about whether they would write your house.
We deliberately publish no index value on this page. It changes, it differs by state, and a number copied onto a web page decays without any visible signal that it has — which is exactly the failure we spend the rest of this site trying to avoid.
| What you want | Where to get it |
|---|---|
| Complaint index for your state | Your state insurance department's complaint report, and the NAIC's consumer lookup. Both are free |
| License status | Your state department of insurance runs a free lookup. This is the route that works for a consumer |
| Financial strength | The rating agencies publish ratings. Note these measure ability to pay claims, not service quality — a different question from the complaint index |
| Whether a market action has been announced where you live | Your department's news releases and bulletins. California's are unusually detailed; most states publish less |
| What your notice actually has to contain | Your state's non-renewal statute. Notice periods differ enormously — California 45 days, Louisiana 60, Florida 120 |
What to do next
Nothing here is advice about your policy and we have not seen your notice. This is the order the constraints above imply, and it is the same for any insurer.
| Step | What to do | Why here |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Read the date on the notice and work backwards | Everything below is bounded by it, and the period is set by your state — it may be far longer than you assume |
| 2 | Get the specific stated reason in writing | “Underwriting” is not a reason. The actual finding tells you whether it is fixable |
| 3 | Check whether a moratorium or regulatory action applies to you | After a declared emergency many states bar non-renewal inside a defined area, and a proceeding may have suspended them more broadly |
| 4 | Do not let the policy lapse while you argue | A coverage gap becomes its own decline reason on the next application |
| 5 | Work the market from the top of the ladder down | Standard admitted, then non-standard admitted, then surplus lines, then the last-resort plan. Each rung costs more and covers less |
| 6 | Fix what is fixable before reapplying | Applying again against an unchanged house spends your attempts for nothing |
Corrections to this page (16)
We publish these rather than editing quietly. Our corrections policy explains how we handle errors.
- — Our opening paragraph gave the 24-month renewal right after a total loss with no exception at all. Section 675.1(a)(3) opens “Except for the reasons specified in subdivisions (a) to (e), inclusive, of Section 676” — nonpayment among them. Our own registered quotation carries that opening. Quoting past it is the exact defect this page exists to document in other people's writing, and the one field built to survive being quoted alone was the field still doing it.
- — We described the fire-affected continuation provision twice without either of its limiters. It reaches the Exhibit 18 list to filing 24-651, not “policies affected by the Palisades and Eaton fires”; and a second limb is void absent a fire-claim finding, which the 23 July 2026 final order expressly declined to make. Both limiters were in our table and in neither the prose nor the FAQ — and the FAQ is also what search engines read as structured data.
- — We stated an open enforcement matter against a named insurer with no document behind it. The row asserted a May 2026 Accusation and Order to Show Cause; this table's source line covers the rate proceeding, not an enforcement matter, and we hold no registered quotation for it. The row now says that plainly instead.
- — We said one wildfire moratorium was live when three were. Having added section 675.1, we printed one bulletin's 22 ZIP Codes and told readers “there is a live one right now”. As at that date the department had at least three moratorium bulletins in force, from declarations in September 2025, December 2025 and August 2026 — and the September one covers Calaveras and Tuolumne, the same counties as the bulletin we named. A reader protected by a different bulletin would have checked our list, not found their ZIP Code, and concluded they had nothing. We now point at the department's bulletins index instead of printing a list.
- — We told readers the “based solely on” limiter was “the whole of what the moratorium does and does not do”. Subdivision (c) of the same section names three circumstances in which the moratorium does not apply at all. We had not read to the end of the section we were quoting.
- — We quoted section 675.1(a)(3) from its second clause. Our entry began “the insurer shall offer…” and described itself as the opening of the sentence. The sentence opens “Except for the reasons specified in subdivisions (a) to (e), inclusive, of Section 676” — the exception governing the whole obligation. Quoting past a qualifier and calling it the opening is the defect this page exists to document in other people's work. The paragraph is now quoted whole.
- — We presented “January 2027” as the end of the total-loss renewal right for a January 2025 loss. The statute requires at least two annual renewal periods and no less than 24 months from the loss, whichever runs longer — so 24 months is the floor, and two renewal periods normally end later. We stated our own rule correctly in one cell and then contradicted it in the example.
- — We wrote that the section “requires an offer to renew” without explaining that paragraph (1) has the insurer adjust limits, coverages and premium to the changed exposure. It is a right to be offered a renewal, not a right to keep the existing policy at the existing price, and a reader could have taken it for the second.
- — Our methodology said “the two subdivisions quoted here” when three are quoted, and claimed confirmation against “a second published copy of the code” without naming it — an unfalsifiable reliability claim of exactly the kind this page tells readers to reject.
- — The page's Updated date and its machine-readable dateModified both still said 23 August after a day of substantial edits, so the page told crawlers its most important content did not exist. The build gate now fails when a page's update date is older than its own newest correction, which caught the same defect on four other pages.
- — We omitted the law. This page discussed California's State Farm settlement at length, told a reader holding an individual non-renewal notice that it “very likely does not protect you”, and advised them to work to their notice date — while never naming Insurance Code section 675.1 anywhere. Section 675.1(a)(3) requires an insurer to offer to renew for at least two annual renewal periods and no less than 24 months from the date of the loss where the primary insured structure was a total loss caused by a disaster. For a January 2025 total loss that runs into January 2027, and it is mandatory rather than negotiated. A reader in exactly that position could have read this page and given up a right the settlement was never the source of. The statute now has its own table, its own section of the California discussion, and two FAQs.
- — Relatedly, we never mentioned the separate area-wide moratorium in section 675.1(b)(1), which bars non-renewal in designated ZIP Codes for one year after an emergency declaration regardless of whether the policyholder suffered a loss. For the January 2025 fires that year has expired. We now say both that it exists and that it has run, because a reader who has heard of it needs to know which of the two rules is theirs.
- — We described the stipulation's continuation of fire-affected policies as reaching policies suspended after a total loss, policies in the Palisades and Eaton moratorium ZIP codes, and policies with claims from those fires, and called it the provision most likely to help a fire-affected policyholder. It reaches the policies “originally slated for nonrenewal in SFG's March, 2024 filing number 24-651 as shown in Exhibit 18 to that filing”. The parties also wrote that the agreement as to the fire-claim group “is void absent” a finding on unfair discrimination, and the final order states it does not make findings on that issue.
- — We described California's moratorium using the department's press-release summary — “homeowners, rental dwelling, condominium, and renters non-renewals and cancellations for at least one additional year” — and attributed it to the settlement. The stipulation is far narrower: refrain from new block non-renewals during 2026 as to homeowners policy forms. It does not bar an individual non-renewal, which is what most readers of this page are holding. A press release summarizing a document is not the document.
- — We said no final decision on the settlement could be found. The Commissioner signed the final order on 23 July 2026, a month before we published. The department issued no press release, so a news-release search returned nothing — but our source line claimed verification against filings too, and that is where it was.
- — We stated that underwriting guidelines are not collected by any regulator in public form. Missouri requires them to be filed and treats them as public records, Texas requires residential property guidelines to be filed, and California has held that underwriting rules filed with a rate application are open to inspection.
How we researched this
Everything on this page about the California proceeding is read from the stipulation and the department's releases, checked 23 August 2026. Where the department's press release and the underlying stipulation differ in scope, we follow the stipulation and say so. That difference is the substance of this page: a press release summarizing a settlement is not the settlement.
The statutory material is separate, and it was missing. California Insurance Code section 675.1 is read from the Legislature's own text at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov on 27 August 2026; the section was last amended by Stats. 2018, ch. 618 (SB 894). Three subdivisions are quoted — (a)(2), (a)(3) and (b)(1) — and each was read from the section text leginfo itself renders, not from a summary or a mirror. The statute is the half of this story that goes unreported: it gives a total-loss policyholder a longer and mandatory renewal right than anything in the settlement, and it was missing from this page until an audit found it — see the corrections below.
The current moratorium bulletin is quoted from the department's Bulletin 2026-6 of 14 August 2026, read from the PDF's own text layer on 27 August 2026. We quote the bulletin, not the press release that describes it. The release states a count of affected policyholders that does not appear in the bulletin, and the whole reason this page exists in its current form is that we once repeated a press release's summary of a document in place of the document.
The complaint index formula and the caution about its limits are quoted from the Kansas Insurance Department's Complaint Index 2024 Report, covering complaints closed during 2024. We use Kansas because it states the formula plainly; states compute the index on their own complaint data, so the value for any insurer differs by state.
We publish no complaint index value, no market share figure and no rank. The index moves and is state-specific. On market share, the published tables disagree with each other — one widely cited ranking carries a 2023 heading over figures its own note describes as 2021, and the NAIC's total-premium table is all-lines rather than homeowners. Rather than pick whichever looks best, we say State Farm is among the largest homeowners insurers, which is not in dispute, and leave precise shares to the source documents.
We are not affiliated with State Farm. Naming a company in order 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. 14 quotations from 6 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.
Stipulation and Request for Proposed Decision, 6 Mar 2026 — https://www.insurance.ca.gov/0400-news/0100-press-releases/2026/upload/2026-03-06-Stipulation-and-Request-for-Proposed-Decision.pdf
originally slated for nonrenewal in SFG's March, 2024 filing number 24-651 as shown in Exhibit 18 to that filing
Stipulation and Request for Proposed Decision, 6 Mar 2026 — numbered item 3. THE LIMITER. The continuation reaches that list, not every policy in a Palisades or Eaton ZIP code Retrieved 24 August 2026.
The agreement herein as to Group (iii) policies is void absent such a finding.
Stipulation and Request for Proposed Decision, 6 Mar 2026 — numbered item 3, the fire-claim group. The finding was requested and the final order declined to make it Retrieved 24 August 2026.
Thereafter SFG agrees to comply with then-current law and follow then-current filing instructions regarding rule filings before implementing any new block non-renewals.
Stipulation and Request for Proposed Decision, 6 Mar 2026 — numbered item 2, the sentence AFTER the one this page quoted. The constraint does not simply expire at the end of 2026 Retrieved 24 August 2026.
Refrain from making any new block non-renewals during 2026 with respect to the homeowners policy forms covered by this settlement/stipulation
Stipulation and Request for Proposed Decision, 6 Mar 2026 — numbered item 2 under 'The Parties stipulate that SFG will:'. STILL OPERATIVE: adopted by the Commissioner's 'Order Adopting Proposed Decision Approving Stipulation, Additional Agreement and Order with Minor Changes', 23 July 2026. The minor changes are a refund-date clarification and paragraph-reference corrections; the order states they 'do not affect the factual or legal basis of the Proposed Decision' and item 2 is unchanged. WE CHECKED THIS RATHER THAN ASSUMING IT, because this site has cited a discharged stipulation as live authority once before Retrieved 24 August 2026.
Order Adopting Proposed Decision, 23 July 2026 — https://consumerwatchdog.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Order-Adopting-Proposed-Decision-Approving-Stipulation-Additional-Agreement-Order-with-Minor-Changes-re-SFG.pdf
does not make findings on issues unaddressed by the May 7, 2026 Proposed Decision, including the continuation of certain policies and the potential issue of unfair discrimination within the meaning of Insurance Code sections 1858 or 1861.05(a)
Order Adopting Proposed Decision, 23 July 2026 — the Commissioner declining the finding on which the Group (iii) continuation was expressly conditioned Retrieved 24 August 2026.
The date from which refunds and interest are due for all forms covered by the Proposed Stipulation for the Interim Rate Period is June 1, 2025
Order Adopting Proposed Decision …with Minor Changes, 23 July 2026 — the first of the two 'minor changes' Retrieved 24 August 2026.
California Insurance Code section 675.1, subdivision (a)(3) — https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=INS§ionNum=675.1
Except for the reasons specified in subdivisions (a) to (e), inclusive, of Section 676, the insurer shall offer, for at least the next two annual renewal periods, but no less than 24 months of coverage from the date of the loss, to renew the policy in accordance with paragraph (1) if the total loss to the primary insured structure was caused by a disaster, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1689.14 of the Civil Code, the loss was not also due to the negligence of the insured, and losses have not occurred subsequent to the disaster-related total loss that relate to physical or risk changes to the insured property that result in the property becoming uninsurable.
California Insurance Code section 675.1, subdivision (a)(3) — the whole of paragraph (3), read from leginfo's rendered section text on 27 Aug 2026. IT IS QUOTED WHOLE ON PURPOSE. For most of 27 August this entry began at 'the insurer shall offer', dropping the opening 'Except for the reasons specified in subdivisions (a) to (e), inclusive, of Section 676' — the exception that governs the whole obligation — and then described itself as 'the opening of the operative sentence'. That is precisely the defect this page was built to document in other people's work Retrieved 27 August 2026.
shall not cancel coverage while the primary insured structure is being rebuilt
California Insurance Code section 675.1, subdivision (a)(2) — the operative clause of the first sentence, quoted from 'shall' because the subject ('The insurer') is named in our own sentence immediately before it Retrieved 27 August 2026.
An insurer shall not cancel or refuse to renew a policy of residential property insurance for a property located in any ZIP Code within or adjacent to the fire perimeter, for one year after the declaration of a state of emergency
California Insurance Code section 675.1, subdivision (b)(1) — the opening of the sentence, stopped before the 'based solely on' limiter, which this page states in terms immediately afterwards because it is the whole of what the moratorium does and does not do Retrieved 27 August 2026.
California Department of Insurance Bulletin 2026-6, 14 Aug 2026 — https://www.insurance.ca.gov/0250-insurers/0300-insurers/0200-bulletins/bulletin-notices-commiss-opinion/upload/Bulletin-2026-6-One-Year-Moratorium.pdf
no admitted or non-admitted insurer shall issue a notice of cancellation or non-renewal due to wildfire risk for one year, starting on August 6, 2026, for a policy of residential or commercial property insurance, as defined, in the following ZIP Codes
California Department of Insurance Bulletin 2026-6, 14 Aug 2026 — the operative sentence, quoted to the colon that introduces the ZIP list. Read from the PDF's own text layer, not from the department's press release, which states a policyholder count the bulletin itself does not contain Retrieved 27 August 2026.
CDI press release 012-2026, 6 Mar 2026 — https://www.insurance.ca.gov/0400-news/0100-press-releases/2026/release012-2026.cfm
homeowners, rental dwelling, condominium, and renters non-renewals and cancellations for at least one additional year
CDI press release 012-2026, 6 Mar 2026 — body. NOT the stipulation; the page contrasts the two deliberately Retrieved 24 August 2026.
Kansas Insurance Department, Complaint Index 2024 Report — https://insurance.ks.gov/documents/department/publications/complaint-index-report-2024.pdf
a complaint index of 1.00 means the insurer's share of all complaints received is equal to its share of all the business written in Kansas
Kansas Insurance Department, Complaint Index 2024 Report — explanatory intro page Retrieved 24 August 2026.
COMPLAINT INDEX = COMPANY'S COMPLAINTS / COMPANY'S MARKET SHARE
Complaint Index 2024 Report — formula line, intro page Retrieved 24 August 2026.
Complaint indexes do not tell you everything about a company.
Complaint Index 2024 Report — intro page, limitations passage Retrieved 24 August 2026.
What we could not find
This page makes 3 claims 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.
“No insurer publishes a consumer-facing roof-age rule”
“there is no national public database”
“No insurer publishes a consumer-facing statement of its underwriting rules”
Where we looked 24 August 2026.
- Searched for any state regulation requiring carrier underwriting guidelines to be filed with, or released by, the regulator
- Searched separately for a NATIONAL public database of underwriting rules, as distinct from state filing requirements
What we actually opened
- Missouri 20 CSR 500-9.100, Required Filing of Underwriting Rules — guidelines ARE filed in some states, which is why this page says so
- No national public database of carrier underwriting rules was found in either search
Frequently asked questions
Are you State Farm, or connected to them?
No. We are a private, currently advertising-free website with no relationship to State Farm — not their agent, not affiliated, not endorsed by them. We cannot see your policy, change it, reinstate it or appeal anything on your behalf. To reach State Farm, use the contact details on your own policy documents.
Why did State Farm non-renew me specifically?
We cannot tell you, and neither can any other website. Insurers do not publish consumer-facing underwriting rules, and while a few states require guidelines to be filed and treat them as inspectable, that is not a route a consumer can use in the days after a notice arrives. What you are entitled to is the reason stated on your notice, which in most states must be given — and if it says only "underwriting", it is reasonable to ask for the specific finding in writing.
Is there a moratorium stopping State Farm non-renewals in California?
Narrower than usually reported. The stipulation, finalized by the Commissioner's order of 23 July 2026, has State Farm refrain from making any new block non-renewals during 2026 with respect to the homeowners policy forms it covers. That is block non-renewals, not individual ones; homeowners forms, not all lines; and during 2026, not a year from now. Cancellation is expressly carved out for the statutory grounds in Insurance Code section 676. A separate provision continues the policies on the Exhibit 18 list to filing 24-651 in force until the end of 2026; a second limb turning on a fire-claim finding is void absent such a finding, and the 23 July 2026 final order declined to make one. Confirm your own position with the department.
My house burned down and they still non-renewed me. Can they do that?
In California, if the primary insured structure was a total loss caused by a disaster, Insurance Code section 675.1(a)(3) requires the insurer to “offer, for at least the next two annual renewal periods, but no less than 24 months of coverage from the date of the loss, to renew the policy”. That is statute. It does not depend on a settlement, on being named in a filing, or on which insurer you are with. The clock runs from the date of the loss, so a January 2025 total loss is protected at least into January 2027 — usually longer, because two annual renewal periods normally end after the 24-month mark. Note the word offer. Paragraph (1) has the insurer adjust limits, coverages and premium to your changed exposure, so the section obliges them to offer you a renewal — not to keep your existing policy at your existing price. It is subject to the grounds in section 676(a) to (e) — nonpayment of premium is one of them — and it requires that the loss was not also due to your own negligence. If you have a notice in hand and you had a total loss, that section is the thing to put in writing to the insurer and to the department. We are not lawyers and this is not advice about your policy.
What about the one-year wildfire moratorium I keep reading about?
That is a different rule, and for the January 2025 fires it has expired. Section 675.1(b)(1) bars cancelling or refusing to renew a residential property policy “in any ZIP Code within or adjacent to the fire perimeter, for one year after the declaration of a state of emergency” — and only where the reason is solely that the property sits in an area where a wildfire occurred. It protects people who suffered no loss at all, which is its point, but one year from the January 2025 declarations has run. The Commissioner designates the covered ZIP Codes by bulletin, and a fresh declaration starts a fresh year, so check the department's current list rather than assuming either way.
What is State Farm's complaint index?
We are not publishing a number, deliberately. The index is state-specific and it changes, so a figure printed on a web page goes out of date without any signal that it has. Look up the current value through your state insurance department or the NAIC's consumer lookup. Read it as a ratio — complaints divided by market share, where 1.00 means complaints in line with size — and not as a score.
Does a rate increase mean I will be non-renewed?
They are different decisions. A rate change applies to policies that continue; a non-renewal ends one. In California both were live at once during the State Farm proceeding, which is part of why the position there is confusing. Your notice tells you which one you have received, and the distinction matters because the clocks and the options differ.
Should I wait for the regulator, or start shopping?
Start shopping, and treat any regulatory relief as a bonus rather than a plan. Proceedings move slowly and your notice period does not wait for them. Being uninsured even briefly creates a coverage gap that becomes its own reason for the next insurer to decline, so the safe posture is to arrange coverage as though nothing will intervene.